Burnham: Is the Media Tempting Fate by Jumping the Gun?

MayBee70

Probably the sort of things that Starmer was planning to do in the second term…

It could be, couldn't it.

DaisyAnneReturns

LemonJam

DaisyAnneReturns

Oh LemonJam, you do sound down.

My reply 13.47 was meant to be in response to you DAR 💐

Did I misread it? I thought you sounded sad.

Hopeful and positive about AB but sad the amount of disparagement and antipathy against him already and he has not even been voted as PM yet. Still he's been around the block and will survive I'm sure whatever the outcome.

I worry that our country has become ungovernable after leaving the EU and the electorate and media is not prepared to give any elected party a chance to govern. However I guess it's par for the course though and has been the same pattern since the EU referendum.

Keep calm and carry on....

Keep calm and carry on is the slogan for our times. Like LemonJam I’m hopeful and positive about Andy Burnham. I was about Keir Starmer and it was a very long time before I reluctantly agreed he had to go.

Andy Burnham is more of a fairly well known politician as he used to and now represents areas I know well. When he mentioned the left behind he named Platt Bridge which I’m very familiar with because of my working life. Honestly I feel emotional remembering the ex mining families who lost pride, couldn’t find any work and so much alcohol and drug addiction followed. Andy gets it, that’s what’s needed

MayBee70

So was it wrong of Starmer and Reeves to point out to the electorate that Labour had inherited a country in a bad way after 14 years of austerity added to which were wars and then a deranged vengeful POTUS; to say that it couldn’t be turned around quickly and that they couldn’t promise sunlit uplands in the first term? Has Burnham ever mentioned anything about world affairs or how he is going to deal with other world leaders. Or is he too busy referencing cult moves and Smiths songs ( but without ever mentioning Morrissey’s current political views because he sits on the fence when it comes to that)?

No. I don't think they were 'wrong', but I don't think they should have had such a doom and gloom message.

I would prefer absolutely honesty, but the reality is that, as we have seen, the population as a whole wants soundbites and slogans and 'charisma', so that is what has to be provided one way or another. Otherwise we keep hearing about 'rabbits in the headlights' and 'two tier' policies and so on. People don't want to hear anything other than what suits them, and even then they will twist it to say what they want it to say.

That is no way to run a country, IMO, but it is what we are faced with. .

There is surely nothing more depressing that the Smiths.

Post truth politics has now entered the age of ego politics I fear

MayBee70

So was it wrong of Starmer and Reeves to point out to the electorate that Labour had inherited a country in a bad way after 14 years of austerity added to which were wars and then a deranged vengeful POTUS; to say that it couldn’t be turned around quickly and that they couldn’t promise sunlit uplands in the first term? Has Burnham ever mentioned anything about world affairs or how he is going to deal with other world leaders. Or is he too busy referencing cult moves and Smiths songs ( but without ever mentioning Morrissey’s current political views because he sits on the fence when it comes to that)?

Starmer and Reeves were right to point out that the country was in a bad way after 14 years of (tory) austerity, because that was entirely true, but they were wrong to gloom and doom about it. The solution to putting the country right was in their hands, but because they don’t seem to understand how money gets into the economy in the first place, because they persisted in perpetrating the entirely false model of a national economy being the same as a household economy (or the national economy has to make a profit, like a business) they went about running it in exactly the same way as the tories. Even today, the announcement of more money for defence went hand in hand with the explanation that other budgets had to be cut to accommodate this increase. This is tory austerity, however much they might claim that it isn’t.

There are a number of ways that money gets into the economy, but only one way that people and businesses can enjoy enough surplus money to save and to invest.

I will say now that if anyone wants to tell me that my model is only one among many I would be happy if they can explain their alternative in detail, starting with what the source, the original point of issue, of our money is, and taking it from there.

Money enters our economy through foreign earnings, foreign investments, banks making loans and government spending. The first two can be discounted as we import more than we export, so there is a net loss of our money abroad in payment for imports. Foreign investments also result in our money going abroad as the investors take their profits (though its circulation in the domestic economy can cause some economic activity before it goes). Bank loans, which are completely new money which banks are allowed to issue by the government dubject to certain conditions, also give rise to economic activity, but more than just the loan has to be repaid, which will tend to remove some further economic activity. The remaining source of our money is government spending. But the government doesn’t get back all of the money it spends. Taxation removes some of it but never all of it. This means that there is always some government money left in the economy. This is called the deficit. The deficit has become something to fe feared by governments and, because of the government fear, also by citizens. But if it weren’t for the deficit no-one would have any money to save for the future. Cutting the deficit cuts the money that people have available to spend and save. It slows growth because businesses depend on people spending enough money to make the business viable. If businesses fail growth falls further.

14 years of attempts to cut the deficit by cutting government spending, the only source of sufficiency money to maintain growth and personal saving for future needs, surely must point to the irrationality of the exercise?

If governments persist in ‘fiscal rules’ which depress growth and reduce the ability of citizens to spend and to save the country will not thrive. We know that because here we are, some 20% of us living in poverty and many more only just managing.

As businesses won’t invest with no prospect of profit then government has to. Deficits are positive so long as the government spends to promote real growth and withdraws enough of the excess (by taxation ) to prevent too much inflation.

The Starmer government is far too constrained by the fiscal rules and Burnham will be too if he sticks with them.

MayBee70

Post truth politics has now entered the age of ego politics I fear

We entered the age of post truth politics when Thatcher declared that there was no government money, only taxpayers money…

Where on earth did she think the taxpayers money came from?

MaizieD

MayBee70

Post truth politics has now entered the age of ego politics I fear

We entered the age of post truth politics when Thatcher declared that there was no government money, only taxpayers money…

Where on earth did she think the taxpayers money came from?

That was the illusion created by Thatcher and all PMs since, that we could give away public assets like Council Houses, Hospitals, Utilities into commercial ownership without consequences for short term gain

We now know the cost of that and it's going to be very painful to change that.

But change we must despite the pain if not we continue to decline.

the population as a whole wants soundbites and slogans and 'charisma' .... I would change the word population to media .... they are what is driving this nonsense.

It is indeed no way to run a country.

perpetrating the entirely false model of a national economy being the same as a household economy

This idea is so entrenched now I see no way out. If even Labour espouses this idea where to turn for a party that will invest in our country and generate jobs and growth?

Luckygirl3

*perpetrating the entirely false model of a national economy being the same as a household economy*

This idea is so entrenched now I see no way out. If even Labour espouses this idea where to turn for a party that will invest in our country and generate jobs and growth?

I don’t quite understand what you are asking, Luckygirl.

A Labour government could be the party that will invest in our country. It has the power if it cares to grasp it and ignore the lobbying of the rich and the financial sector. Economist, Maria Mazzucato, wrote a book some time ago, The Entrepreneurial State’ which showed how US government investment post WW2 in, among other things, technologyseeded the development of computers and computers technology in a way that no private individual or business could ever have done because tgey could not have afforded the research and development costs. Yet from that initial investment has arisen a plethora of highly successful private companies which make a big contribution to GDP.

I could also say that the US fervent belief in unregulated markets has led to many evils as a result of this, but regulation could well be differently managed. That’s a political/ideological matter. The essential lesson is that government investment can open the way to attract entrepreneurs and private investment (isn’t that what we’ve been crying out for?) in areas where it’s appropriate. Have we not recently noted that UK government investment in green energy has led to green industrial developments worth £100billion p.a to the UK?

Government has the power to positively influence markets, not cower in fear of them. That power is the ability to create the money needed for productive investment without having to pay it back with interest to anyone. It has done it before during the GFC and Covid (though admittedly not very productively), it can do it again to benefit the country.

"A Labour government could be the party that will invest in our country."

It could be, but there are no signs that it will be, until we start investing for growth it won't happen, we have a growing population with higher expectations. Despite giving away many of our assets to foreigners we are still borrowing 100% of GDP which costs us £100bn a year in interest.

Radical change is needed and I don't see where that is going to come from.

‘… giving away many of our assets to foreigners…’

Please explain.

David49

"A Labour government could be the party that will invest in our country."

It could be, but there are no signs that it will be, until we start investing for growth it won't happen, we have a growing population with higher expectations. Despite giving away many of our assets to foreigners we are still borrowing 100% of GDP which costs us £100bn a year in interest.

Radical change is needed and I don't see where that is going to come from.

Federalisation is precisely the sort of structural reform that changes how investment decisions are made. Rather than relying on Westminster to decide where growth comes from, it would empower regions to invest directly in transport, housing, skills, and business support, with the aim of boosting productivity and economic growth.

Whether it succeeds would depend less on the constitutional change itself and more on the quality of regional leadership, the powers devolved, the fiscal framework, and whether investment is directed toward projects that genuinely improve productivity.

The post-war federal structure of West Germany was shaped by all three Western occupying powers - the UK, the US, and France - but Britain was an important advocate of decentralisation. Many economists and political scientists would say Germany's federal model has delivered several advantages over the UK's highly centralised system. Some of the commonly cited strengths are:

More balanced regional economies
Greater local investment.
Long-term policy stability
Strong local government

There are additional reasons of course, why Germany has done well. I'm personally interested in their renowned Mittelstand of medium-sized firms. Something to do more research on

It's ironic when you think that Britain helped build a decentralised post-war Germany, yet remained one of the most centralised countries in Europe itself!

Radical change is needed and I don't see where that is going to come from.

Exactly so.

David49

"A Labour government could be the party that will invest in our country."

It could be, but there are no signs that it will be, until we start investing for growth it won't happen, we have a growing population with higher expectations. Despite giving away many of our assets to foreigners we are still borrowing 100% of GDP which costs us £100bn a year in interest.

Radical change is needed and I don't see where that is going to come from.

You seem to be missing the point.

It is only government investment in productive initiatives that will kick start growth and attract business investment.

Stop worrying about 'borrowing'. The money we 'borrow', as I have said before, is the money which has already been put into the economy through government spending; those who have some of the excess money resulting from the 'deficit' are happy to 'invest' it in government bonds because they are the safest place for it; it has a guaranteed return and the government will never default on repaying the principal. It is, in fact, a vital service for institutions such as pension funds because of this. Governments have been issuing bonds for hundreds of years because there is a demand for them.

Bond interest rates 'could' be controlled by the government, they don't have to be so high, it should take the BoE in hand and require it to lower them. It may be theoretically independent but it belongs to the state and government has ultimate legal control of it. Technically the government could run an 'overdraft' with the BoE and cut down massively on bond issuance. Alternatively, the government could direct the BoE to buy its bonds like it did for quantitative easing. It's time it worked for the good of the country, not of 'investors'.

The other method of cutting 'borrowing' would be for the government to introduce a truly progressive tax policy so that the excess money held by the wealthy is reduced via taxation. Which, to me, would seem a more sensible way to drain excess money from the economy and cut the 'deficit' than to drain it via bond issuance and then pay interest...

Iam64

Keep calm and carry on is the slogan for our times. Like LemonJam I’m hopeful and positive about Andy Burnham. I was about Keir Starmer and it was a very long time before I reluctantly agreed he had to go.

Andy Burnham is more of a fairly well known politician as he used to and now represents areas I know well. When he mentioned the left behind he named Platt Bridge which I’m very familiar with because of my working life. Honestly I feel emotional remembering the ex mining families who lost pride, couldn’t find any work and so much alcohol and drug addiction followed. Andy gets it, that’s what’s needed

How true Iam64
You would have to be deaf dumb and blind not to be aware of the north/ south divide. Especially when you realise what came from the north: the Industrial Revolution which set this country on its way to being a powerhouse of industry and innovation.

www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zqhvmnb/revision/2#:~:text=Although%20there%20have%20been%20attempts,those%20living%20in%20the%20south.

MaizieD
Would you say there is anyone on the right or left who understands this?

petra

MaizieD
Would you say there is anyone on the right or left who understands this?

Clive Lewis

I expect a few do, but it's very hard to shift the conventional narrative.

Perhaps you should post the link to The Spider's Web again....

'Wealth' is not your friend...

Ladyleftfieldlover

‘… giving away many of our assets to foreigners…’

Please explain.

I think that this is refering to things like a Canadian pension fund partly owning one of our water companies, or French Government investment in our utilities.

Not sure what LadyLeftfidler. means by giving away our assets to foreigners???

Canadian pension investment funds have paid £billions into some UK water companies over the years- Anglian Water, Thames Water and Northumbrian Water. They thus are shareholders in a private business model. Whether UK or other country shareholders investing in water companies the key issue is should UK utility companies be within state control or private control- its not a problem per se with foreigners

In the same way UK pension funds invest heavily in non UK utility companies, thus are foreign investors in other countries. It's called global diversification. i.e. financial investors spreading assets worldwide mitigates the risk of regional economic down turn. Not sure any government would be able to change global diversification investment

If anyone really wants to know how it all works for the super rich, this film explains it. www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6JhF-Ztzrw

LemonJam

Not sure what LadyLeftfidler. means by giving away our assets to foreigners???

Canadian pension investment funds have paid £billions into some UK water companies over the years- Anglian Water, Thames Water and Northumbrian Water. They thus are shareholders in a private business model. Whether UK or other country shareholders investing in water companies the key issue is should UK utility companies be within state control or private control- its not a problem per se with foreigners

In the same way UK pension funds invest heavily in non UK utility companies, thus are foreign investors in other countries. It's called global diversification. i.e. financial investors spreading assets worldwide mitigates the risk of regional economic down turn. Not sure any government would be able to change *global diversification investment*

I think it’s about British owned, profit making private businesses being sold off, and depleting our manufacturing base.