I just listened to Burnham's speech this morning. It was ok in as far as it went, but mostly concentrated on more devolution across Britain as a means to create economic growth.
As an "old labour" type I would support his ideas of mass council house building, an increase in emphasis on vocational training and away from mickey mouse degree factories etc.
However I never heard anything about an end to mass immigration and multiculturalism, net zero BS or LGBT indoctrination. These things also matter to me, and millions of left patriots like me I suspect. So the jury's still out on Burnham for me until I hear from him on these vital issues.
Paul I like Burnham being a little vague. It makes it more difficult for pundits like you. I’m not saying he shouldn’t be clear about what he wants to achieve it’s just that be prepared for things happening in a rather left-field sort of way. This country needs to get back to work and Burnham is likely to prioritise UK manufacturing over foreign imports. Not in an obvious way but in a more subtle and pragmatic way. We need a radical approach and he’s got two to three years to show he can deliver - let’s see how he gets on and judge him at the end of his tenure.
I think Burnham is a lot smarter than people think. I have experience with his methods and off-camera personality from my time in Manchester, where I grew up. I can guarantee you that he will surprise everyone.
He's got a lot of integrity, he doesn't take any nonsense, and if he says he's going to do something, then he will do it to the best of his ability within the limits of his power. He will be much more limited as PM than he was as Mayor but he’s got a majority in parliament, he can make the necessary changes.
Politicians are overwhelmingly bad, but Andy understands it’s give and take and he gives as much as he takes.
Unfortunately, the lady who's arguing against you here is a 100% fixated anti-Labour person. There will always be some people who will just never vote for the party of the people no matter what they do.
So they just make stuff up and try to apportion blame where it's completely unwarranted as Iris February has tried to do here.
She probably holds Andy Burnham responsible for the JFK shooting and the invasion of Poland too!
Iris if you knew anything about that inquest at all you would know the inquest wouldnt have happened if it wasn’t for Burnham. He called for the inquest and exposed the failings, then publicly announced them. If it wasnt for him, people like yourself would know nothing about it. Maybe instead of quoting soundbites from bullshitters on facebook actually look into what happened.
What's that got to do with Burnham? The Grooming gangs happened over a decade before he was Mayor and even if he had been mayor he has zero control over policing, the CPS or the courts.
I'd like to make a suggestion for where he can get some "massive fiscal capacity"....get all illegals now out of accommodation (especially of the 4* kind) and put them in tents at some disused army base or wasteland somewhere. Scrap their free phones and bowling vouchers and pocket money and free NhS care. That should save at least £2bn a year. Then force all non-Brits to pay the full amount for their health care rather than subsidising it. I could go on.
And in terms of you expecting to see Burnham ride in on a donkey, remember he IS the donkey (along with the entire Labour cabinet and the majority of its backbenchers).
The saddest thing of all is that based on Makerfield the red wall voters seem to be flocking back to more of the same rather than sticking with Reform under whom, despite more right-leaning economic policies, this class will feel no worse off and likely a lot better off. Only a fool would vote for Labour in the next general election and those that do can suffer the consequences because I don't know what else can be said or done to make such voters realise that the Labour Party hates them - that's indoctrination for you. The middle classes meanwhile, and property, land or business owners are laughing all the way to the bank. Much as it goes against my principles, if the government offered to rent my house to fill it with 20 illegal immigrants I'd take them up on the offer. Just to rub the nimby noses of my immigration-loving neighbours in it. Refugees welcome here, oh but not on my street. Reform brilliantly called the bluff of such voters by announcing he'll send them all to those postcodes. First thing they did? Complain. It's so tiresome.
How is Labour the true party of the people. They have disdain for the people. What have they done that helps the people? Blair and Brown hates the working class. They flooded the country with immigrants thereby keeping wages low, destroying communities and putting them before the British people (that is the law in fact if you read the Equality Act). And then called them all racist bigots when they dared complain. The working class is much worse off now. When the economy is doing well the working class becomes better off. With Labour we have a race to the bottom. They couldn't even increase income tax on the higher rates!! Instead they taxed everyone more across the board! Rents are through the roof due to the huge excess demand caused by immigration too. As a homeowner and an employer immigration is making me rich whilst making poor people poorer. Labour is strangling the economy. Poor economy can be ridden out by the middle classes but it hits the poor the hardest. Tell me what Labour have done for the people? Just bizarre.
Labour Governments over the years have introduced:
Rights at work - unfair dismissal legislation, safety at work laws, minimum wage, statutory annual leave, equal pay for equal work, trade union recognition, reasonable adjustments for workers with disabilities, maternity and paternity leave, statutory redundancy pay, statutory sick pay, consultation and representation.
In wider society - creation of the NHS, building of council housing, free comprehensive education for all up to 16, creation of the Open University, outlawing of racial discrimination, legalisation of homosexuality, abolition of 'Section 28', civil partnerships under the law and the right to inherit for widowed same-sex partners.
I repeat, everything for the people has come from Labour.
I don't deny that Labour governments have done wonders for workers in the past. But I am talking about Starmer's current Labour government specifically which has done nothing for them other than increase the minimum wage by so much it's strangled the economy and killed jobs for the young. Had we been in a boom this policy would have been great, but Labour are so economically illiterate they did it whilst inflation was sky high, industrial energy costs were the highest in the world and the economy had flatlined. And whilst Blair brought in minimum wage and other labour rights he also flooded the country with immigrants which affected the working class disproportionally whose rents went up and wages stayed low as a result. BUT let's assume Starmer had done great things for the workers , that doesn't change all the terrible terrible policies he's brought in since, which I have mentioned in previous comments, that have had horrendous consequences for free speech and freedom. Please tell me what Starmer specifically has done for workers or for anyone that is positive, perhaps I've missed something, genuinely.
My overall point was Labour Governments in general through history - which is a very strong record.
I do agree with you that both parties wrongly allowed inward migration to get out of control and that this helped employers drive down workers' pay overall. Although these figures have started to come down to be fair.
Personally, I'd deploy the Royal Navy to prevent the small boat crossings - but I can't claim that as Labour policy, just a personal opinion.
As to what Starmer did specifically, that was good for the people, I'd cite the new renters' rights, the improved rights at work and the extra help for children at school - such as breakfast clubs. And the raised minimum wage was the right thing to do I believe.
I'm hoping for better under our next PM.
(And hoping for a World Cup win - remember that only ever happens under a Labour Government!)
NET migration has come down but the reason for that is NOT that the home office decided to give out fewer visas. Far from it, they gave out close to 900,000 for a second year running (before which is was over a million for a few years). The reason NET migration has come down is because so many more people are leaving the country (including 250,000 Brits). And I seriously doubt those who are leaving are the ones from the third world who've arrived on a free lunch ticket in recent years. So this situation is actually worse because it means that our British population will be replaced even faster than the 35 or so years in which we're predicted to become the minority in our own country. So please don't be fooled. The Home Office still chooses high immigration and from backwards countries.
Honestly, if those three things are all you can come up with for what they've done that's good, I genuinely despair. They are all well-meaning and are simple pieces of legislation to pass but they are sticking plasters and do not confront the big ticket underlying problems that are making everyone poorer. The economy, jobs, getting people off welfare, an affordable energy policy, a plan for tackling immigration which is bleeding us dry to the tune of billions. Especially workers' rights and the minimum wage which are great but they are killing business at this point in time. I'm a fan of increased minimum wage but not whilst businesses are struggling. It just means businesses employ fewer people or pass on additional cost to the consumer making everything more expensive. The principle of 18 year olds now getting the same minimum wage is great but in practice it's a disaster because now everyone wants people with experience because why would you employ a kid when for the same pay you can get someone older and experienced. Kids are therefore struggling to get jobs. Leaving a generation completely disillusioned. It's just bad timing and is putting even more pressure on businesses after NI rises and energy rises and business tax rises and inflation.its too much in one go. It's just poor economics and policy that hasn't been thought through. Labour have always been blinkered on these things. They don't seem to see balance. If the economy goes down the pan the poor feel it most so their little pay rises are are rendered meaningless.
You are truly optimistic if you think Burnham will be better. It's more of the same. He has the same beliefs as Starmer only a much stronger will. I truly fear.
And had we actually won the World Cup a few more times your statement would no longer be true 😉 . Meanwhile Starmer is feeling so clever allowing pubs to stay open for our next game. It's good but not heroic - it barely touches the sides.
I enjoyed reading this piece, because it expresses so well the doubts of so many of us
Aside from the fact that I don’t know very much about Andy Burnham apart from having seen him fail two previous leadership bids and be a highly ineffective Health Secretary, I strongly resent his arrogant assumption that all he has to do to take on the most important political role in the U.K. is to shoulder aside a sitting MP, take his seat and then make triumphal progress to London to take over.
Strictly speaking it might be within the Constitution but as far as I’m concerned it’s arrogant and undemocratic.
Great article Paul and I share your misgivings on Burnham as do most thinking people I’d guess.
Your list of priorities are spot on but I lose confidence with public investment fiscally led projects leading the way. I would agree with large investments into a new nuclear power programme and something around defence expenditure around ships, tanks and drones but I’d guess Burnham thinks building a new Old Trafford will sort out Manchester. And it’s all very well saying he’ll stick with Reeves’ iron clad rules (which are killing us really) but we have to free up cash for corporate tax and investment tax (CGT) to really get moving again n
The pathetic Labour clown show is getting worse! Even Capt. Pugwash with his crew members, Seamen Stains and Master Bates had more credibility…..
That shower need taking out of their fart filled bubble and dropped smack bang in the middle of the physical mess they’ve created, let them get a taste of the rising fear and distrust the indigenous peoples are feeling.
This won’t end well and one things for sure, those cowards won’t be anywhere near what/where ever the front line develops.
"be willing to use the massive fiscal capacity available to governments of sovereign, currency-issuing nations to deliver investment-led growth."
Fiscal capacity is one thing. Physical capacity is another. We have a systemic problem in the UK of lack of capital investment, terrible management that is incapable of using modern organisational methods, an addiction to "cost of living rises" in business pricing rather than competitive quantity adjustment and an amplification mechanism via the huge overhang of index-linked gilts that increase government spending at the RPI rate if prices change.
Unfortunately to deliver investment growth in the UK will require shutting down consumption in areas people would rather not. We have been eating our seed corn for far too long.
That requires an even more radical approach than abandoning the "we haven't any money" fallacy.
In healthcare, for example, it would require a new NHS act transferring the private medical system to the NHS - as we did with the cottage hospitals in 1948. We all know that it's the same consultants in private and public and the private system just allows you to "jump the queue" because you have money. And we know from the death of NHS dentistry where that slow burn ends up.
We can't spend our way out of the NHS problem. We have to physically take the resources from those who would reserve them for themselves and make them available to all - on the basis of need rather than ability to pay.
Unfortunately the blinkered hear the words "private health care" and need the smelling salts to recover. They think only of America when they hear those words. They don't think of numerous European countries who have a private system mixed with government subsidies. The Netherlands for example is usually in the World top 3 for health care and yes you pay to see the GP (shock horror) and the poor get it paid for them. The current NhS is a disaster. And who are the fools who think it's free?? It's an enormous tax burden.
It's more that those who cry "private health care" haven't thought it through very well.
Private health care in the UK, like the dentistry system, doesn't add any physical capacity. It simply leaches off the public system and smothers it. The private system trains no doctors or health care workers and builds nothing the state couldn't build itself.
In essence it is like the Fast Track queue at Alton Towers. It allows those with money to jump the queue to access the limited facilities that actually exist.
The European systems aren't anywhere near as marvellous as advocates insist. The results are a function of high level of investment over decades. In reality capacity is used up in the Netherlands - hence their recent report on the shortage of GPs, and the private funding mechanism wastes around 2-3% of health expenditure on pointless contract negotiations and insurance claims. All people that could be better employed doing something useful.
The problem we have here is lack of investment - all the way across the board
I disagree about private health care leeching off the system. Things could work more efficiently as with many instances of privatisation. I'm not saying it will provide all the answers necessarily and everything is a compromise but the current system is definitely not working in the UK. There is no queue jumping for the rich in the Netherlands. Check their health outcomes. They have a world class system by comparison. I'd like to see how much the UK wastes in a similar vein. Negotiating contracts may cost money but the resulting work could save millions. If you don't need to negotiate because you have a government behind you then more money will be wasted. You seem to imply that anything government run will be cheaper when in fact privatisation of numerous industries creates incentive and streamlining. The blob is a great example that anything government run sucks money in as no one is accountable for their performance.
Are you sure there's a shortage of GPs in The Netherlandsor is there an excess of people? Immigration into the Netherlands in recent years has surpassed that of the UK in terms of percentage of population and is growing rapidly. Especially in the south with ASML shipping tens of thousands of workers in from India. They are certainly not building infrastructure to match. Meanwhile in the UK, the government chooses to import already trained doctors from third world counties rather than pay to train more of our own (there's no shortage of people willing and capable) because it's cheaper to do so. The result is sub standard doctors in many cases and third world countries losing their talented people leaving them even worse off. The left always moan about colonisation and plundering the third world in the past yet here they are still doing it.
As I said the Netherlands health outcomes are a response to sustained investment over decades, which we haven't done in the UK. But now the cracks are starting to show due to the failure of the Eurozone to grow significantly. Hence the 2025 dutch report on GPs, which I'm sure you've read if you are commenting.
The rich queue jump in the UK by leaching off the public system. It's the same consultants in the public and private sphere. There is no mechanism by which competition can have any effect without excess capacity to supply, and there aren't enough doctors to go around.
There is no magic in market provision. It is more efficient if, and only if, there is excess capacity to supply and sufficient competitors. Otherwise it drifts rapidly to oligopoly and monopoly - as we have seen with the train operators.
The UK's capacity to train doctors is limited by the training places available in the system. To train people you have to do *less* doctoring and more training. Unfortunately we are now caught in a trap of having insufficient doctors to do the work let alone free up time to train anybody. Getting out of that requires rather more thought than shouting "private health care".
Remember that in the UK *all* GPs are already private businesses and always have been since the beginning of the NHS. And they are hardly a resounding advert for private markets.
Are you saying the rich should fund their own healthcare. I don't disagree with this but people aren't going to shell out money if they're not forced to. That is already happening a lot because those who can afford to would do so. Perhaps the state can offer tax deductions to encourage them to do more.
I never shouted "private healthcare" has all the answers. I merely meant it is an alternative model that could work. I don't agree that you need excess capacity to improve. Incentive can lead to efficiency savings thereby increasing capacity.
Yes we have too few training places and these should have been vastly expanded ahead of now. However, no government is interested in fixing this problem. If they were they would import double the doctors from abroad, thereby freeing up English ones to train new doctors. Alternatively they could temporarily reduce capacity to train new doctors. Yes some people would suffer but everything's a compromise And every system with finite resources has winners and losers. But what is not a solution is the status quo because many more people will suffer in the long run.
Successive wishy washy PMs and governments have created this situation. Banning all foreigner nationals including illegal immigrants and refugees from subsidised and free NHS care would be a good start to freeing up capacity along with lowering immigration to near zero until infrastructure has had time to catch up.
I'm sure you don't agree that excess capacity to supply is how competition works. However then you can't point to a functional mechanism by which the improvements will come about. All you have is a quasi-religious belief.
However that is the same warm words approach we see with Burnham, and warm words don't butter any parsnips
Some very interesting ideas there Neil Wilson. I like the suggestion that we should nationalise private health capacity - but not entirely sure about a general consumption-reduction policy.
I fully agree with you on the economic ideas you've set out there Paul and of course I agre that our Government under the new leadership needs to follow these principles.
However, Andy Burnham is somewhat constrained by the fiscal promises made in our 2024 election manifesto and so he won't be able to fully move in that direction until he's secured his own mandate.
I'm hoping he'll call an early election hopefully perhaps by this time next year and in which he can set out a much more positive and expansive national plan - along those lines as you've described.
As regards to Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood's immigration reforms, I think Burnham has already stated his support for the new regulations.
I'm not sure I fully agree with you on your counterposing of the social agenda versus the economic agenda though. I think the most successful Labour Governments have managed to combine both. For example, the post-WWII Attlee administration also decolonised and transformed the Empire into an equal Commonwealth of Nations, while also creating the NHS and nationalising broad swathes of UK industry. Attlee himself, after retiring from front-line politics, became an early campaigner for gay rights.
The Wilson years saw several examples of socially progressive legislation, while also prioritising full employment and keeping a positive manufacturing balance of trade.
And under Blair, workers gained the minimum wage and statutory paid leave while gay people also saw the abolition of Thatcher's 'Section 28' and gained the right to inheritance and civil partnerships.
My point here being that it's possible to win and retain majority electoral support among the people as a whole, while also pursuing both economic and social progress.
Great assessment of ‘the messiah’ Paul and good to see you at Spike Summit on Saturday. Given that national debt is nearly 100% of GDP, can you explain where this ‘massive fiscal capacity’ will come from? Hopefully from major reform of welfare and immigration strategy. Hopefully too on policies to unleash private sector investment, hiring and growth. Interested in what you would do if you were in Burnham’s shoes. Thank you.
Hi, Ann Marie. Good to see you, too. In terms of the 'massive fiscal capacity', this relates to my opinion - shared by a growing number of economists across the world - that a sovereign, currency-issuing nation need never constrained by a lack of money. Such a country may be constrained by a lack of other resources - labour, skills, land, machinery, etc - but not actual money. I would like to see the government use its huge fiscal capacity to invest in our productive industries (though obviously while guarding against inflation). I would recommend reading some stuff on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). It explains what I articulate above. This is a good introduction to it: https://gimms.org.uk/
Perhaps the Burnham Government could set out a new manifesto for the next election proposing a series of ring-fenced income and/or wealth taxes specifically aimed at defence, health, energy, transport and housing.
If all you and your fellow Tories are going to focus on is welfare cuts, then what you're saying is the poorest have to pay for all of this. Typical Toryism, but very unfair.
Hi Paul 👋
What a wonderfully written piece, absolutely brilliant 👏
"A Blairite, brownite, milibander and starmerite walk into a bar ,
The barman says "what you drinking Andy ? "
Andy Burnham is basically Keir Starmer with personality, but he is still a weathercock.
Have a lovely week Paul and other readers 😀
I just listened to Burnham's speech this morning. It was ok in as far as it went, but mostly concentrated on more devolution across Britain as a means to create economic growth.
As an "old labour" type I would support his ideas of mass council house building, an increase in emphasis on vocational training and away from mickey mouse degree factories etc.
However I never heard anything about an end to mass immigration and multiculturalism, net zero BS or LGBT indoctrination. These things also matter to me, and millions of left patriots like me I suspect. So the jury's still out on Burnham for me until I hear from him on these vital issues.
Burnham is the Weathercock of the North.
Just "cock" will suffice.
Paul I like Burnham being a little vague. It makes it more difficult for pundits like you. I’m not saying he shouldn’t be clear about what he wants to achieve it’s just that be prepared for things happening in a rather left-field sort of way. This country needs to get back to work and Burnham is likely to prioritise UK manufacturing over foreign imports. Not in an obvious way but in a more subtle and pragmatic way. We need a radical approach and he’s got two to three years to show he can deliver - let’s see how he gets on and judge him at the end of his tenure.
I think Burnham is a lot smarter than people think. I have experience with his methods and off-camera personality from my time in Manchester, where I grew up. I can guarantee you that he will surprise everyone.
He's got a lot of integrity, he doesn't take any nonsense, and if he says he's going to do something, then he will do it to the best of his ability within the limits of his power. He will be much more limited as PM than he was as Mayor but he’s got a majority in parliament, he can make the necessary changes.
Politicians are overwhelmingly bad, but Andy understands it’s give and take and he gives as much as he takes.
Watch and see.
Spot on with your comments there.
Unfortunately, the lady who's arguing against you here is a 100% fixated anti-Labour person. There will always be some people who will just never vote for the party of the people no matter what they do.
So they just make stuff up and try to apportion blame where it's completely unwarranted as Iris February has tried to do here.
She probably holds Andy Burnham responsible for the JFK shooting and the invasion of Poland too!
Ask the victims of the local grooming gangs he let down what they think of his "integrity".
Iris if you knew anything about that inquest at all you would know the inquest wouldnt have happened if it wasn’t for Burnham. He called for the inquest and exposed the failings, then publicly announced them. If it wasnt for him, people like yourself would know nothing about it. Maybe instead of quoting soundbites from bullshitters on facebook actually look into what happened.
How many of the perpetrators and their local facilitators are in jail?
What's that got to do with Burnham? The Grooming gangs happened over a decade before he was Mayor and even if he had been mayor he has zero control over policing, the CPS or the courts.
Just look into it a bit more.
Likewise. Burnham is not the villain of that piece.
I'd like to make a suggestion for where he can get some "massive fiscal capacity"....get all illegals now out of accommodation (especially of the 4* kind) and put them in tents at some disused army base or wasteland somewhere. Scrap their free phones and bowling vouchers and pocket money and free NhS care. That should save at least £2bn a year. Then force all non-Brits to pay the full amount for their health care rather than subsidising it. I could go on.
And in terms of you expecting to see Burnham ride in on a donkey, remember he IS the donkey (along with the entire Labour cabinet and the majority of its backbenchers).
The saddest thing of all is that based on Makerfield the red wall voters seem to be flocking back to more of the same rather than sticking with Reform under whom, despite more right-leaning economic policies, this class will feel no worse off and likely a lot better off. Only a fool would vote for Labour in the next general election and those that do can suffer the consequences because I don't know what else can be said or done to make such voters realise that the Labour Party hates them - that's indoctrination for you. The middle classes meanwhile, and property, land or business owners are laughing all the way to the bank. Much as it goes against my principles, if the government offered to rent my house to fill it with 20 illegal immigrants I'd take them up on the offer. Just to rub the nimby noses of my immigration-loving neighbours in it. Refugees welcome here, oh but not on my street. Reform brilliantly called the bluff of such voters by announcing he'll send them all to those postcodes. First thing they did? Complain. It's so tiresome.
Well said Tracy.
Labour is the only true party of the people though.
Pretty much every decent new laws that we have came from Labour.
So with Andy Burnham at the helm, Labour will win again in the next election - and the Reformists will most likely drift back to Conservative.
How is Labour the true party of the people. They have disdain for the people. What have they done that helps the people? Blair and Brown hates the working class. They flooded the country with immigrants thereby keeping wages low, destroying communities and putting them before the British people (that is the law in fact if you read the Equality Act). And then called them all racist bigots when they dared complain. The working class is much worse off now. When the economy is doing well the working class becomes better off. With Labour we have a race to the bottom. They couldn't even increase income tax on the higher rates!! Instead they taxed everyone more across the board! Rents are through the roof due to the huge excess demand caused by immigration too. As a homeowner and an employer immigration is making me rich whilst making poor people poorer. Labour is strangling the economy. Poor economy can be ridden out by the middle classes but it hits the poor the hardest. Tell me what Labour have done for the people? Just bizarre.
Labour Governments over the years have introduced:
Rights at work - unfair dismissal legislation, safety at work laws, minimum wage, statutory annual leave, equal pay for equal work, trade union recognition, reasonable adjustments for workers with disabilities, maternity and paternity leave, statutory redundancy pay, statutory sick pay, consultation and representation.
In wider society - creation of the NHS, building of council housing, free comprehensive education for all up to 16, creation of the Open University, outlawing of racial discrimination, legalisation of homosexuality, abolition of 'Section 28', civil partnerships under the law and the right to inherit for widowed same-sex partners.
I repeat, everything for the people has come from Labour.
I don't deny that Labour governments have done wonders for workers in the past. But I am talking about Starmer's current Labour government specifically which has done nothing for them other than increase the minimum wage by so much it's strangled the economy and killed jobs for the young. Had we been in a boom this policy would have been great, but Labour are so economically illiterate they did it whilst inflation was sky high, industrial energy costs were the highest in the world and the economy had flatlined. And whilst Blair brought in minimum wage and other labour rights he also flooded the country with immigrants which affected the working class disproportionally whose rents went up and wages stayed low as a result. BUT let's assume Starmer had done great things for the workers , that doesn't change all the terrible terrible policies he's brought in since, which I have mentioned in previous comments, that have had horrendous consequences for free speech and freedom. Please tell me what Starmer specifically has done for workers or for anyone that is positive, perhaps I've missed something, genuinely.
Hi Tracy,
My overall point was Labour Governments in general through history - which is a very strong record.
I do agree with you that both parties wrongly allowed inward migration to get out of control and that this helped employers drive down workers' pay overall. Although these figures have started to come down to be fair.
Personally, I'd deploy the Royal Navy to prevent the small boat crossings - but I can't claim that as Labour policy, just a personal opinion.
As to what Starmer did specifically, that was good for the people, I'd cite the new renters' rights, the improved rights at work and the extra help for children at school - such as breakfast clubs. And the raised minimum wage was the right thing to do I believe.
I'm hoping for better under our next PM.
(And hoping for a World Cup win - remember that only ever happens under a Labour Government!)
NET migration has come down but the reason for that is NOT that the home office decided to give out fewer visas. Far from it, they gave out close to 900,000 for a second year running (before which is was over a million for a few years). The reason NET migration has come down is because so many more people are leaving the country (including 250,000 Brits). And I seriously doubt those who are leaving are the ones from the third world who've arrived on a free lunch ticket in recent years. So this situation is actually worse because it means that our British population will be replaced even faster than the 35 or so years in which we're predicted to become the minority in our own country. So please don't be fooled. The Home Office still chooses high immigration and from backwards countries.
Honestly, if those three things are all you can come up with for what they've done that's good, I genuinely despair. They are all well-meaning and are simple pieces of legislation to pass but they are sticking plasters and do not confront the big ticket underlying problems that are making everyone poorer. The economy, jobs, getting people off welfare, an affordable energy policy, a plan for tackling immigration which is bleeding us dry to the tune of billions. Especially workers' rights and the minimum wage which are great but they are killing business at this point in time. I'm a fan of increased minimum wage but not whilst businesses are struggling. It just means businesses employ fewer people or pass on additional cost to the consumer making everything more expensive. The principle of 18 year olds now getting the same minimum wage is great but in practice it's a disaster because now everyone wants people with experience because why would you employ a kid when for the same pay you can get someone older and experienced. Kids are therefore struggling to get jobs. Leaving a generation completely disillusioned. It's just bad timing and is putting even more pressure on businesses after NI rises and energy rises and business tax rises and inflation.its too much in one go. It's just poor economics and policy that hasn't been thought through. Labour have always been blinkered on these things. They don't seem to see balance. If the economy goes down the pan the poor feel it most so their little pay rises are are rendered meaningless.
You are truly optimistic if you think Burnham will be better. It's more of the same. He has the same beliefs as Starmer only a much stronger will. I truly fear.
And had we actually won the World Cup a few more times your statement would no longer be true 😉 . Meanwhile Starmer is feeling so clever allowing pubs to stay open for our next game. It's good but not heroic - it barely touches the sides.
I enjoyed reading this piece, because it expresses so well the doubts of so many of us
Aside from the fact that I don’t know very much about Andy Burnham apart from having seen him fail two previous leadership bids and be a highly ineffective Health Secretary, I strongly resent his arrogant assumption that all he has to do to take on the most important political role in the U.K. is to shoulder aside a sitting MP, take his seat and then make triumphal progress to London to take over.
Strictly speaking it might be within the Constitution but as far as I’m concerned it’s arrogant and undemocratic.
Great article Paul and I share your misgivings on Burnham as do most thinking people I’d guess.
Your list of priorities are spot on but I lose confidence with public investment fiscally led projects leading the way. I would agree with large investments into a new nuclear power programme and something around defence expenditure around ships, tanks and drones but I’d guess Burnham thinks building a new Old Trafford will sort out Manchester. And it’s all very well saying he’ll stick with Reeves’ iron clad rules (which are killing us really) but we have to free up cash for corporate tax and investment tax (CGT) to really get moving again n
The pathetic Labour clown show is getting worse! Even Capt. Pugwash with his crew members, Seamen Stains and Master Bates had more credibility…..
That shower need taking out of their fart filled bubble and dropped smack bang in the middle of the physical mess they’ve created, let them get a taste of the rising fear and distrust the indigenous peoples are feeling.
This won’t end well and one things for sure, those cowards won’t be anywhere near what/where ever the front line develops.
Pucker up folks, Burpham is not the solution!
"be willing to use the massive fiscal capacity available to governments of sovereign, currency-issuing nations to deliver investment-led growth."
Fiscal capacity is one thing. Physical capacity is another. We have a systemic problem in the UK of lack of capital investment, terrible management that is incapable of using modern organisational methods, an addiction to "cost of living rises" in business pricing rather than competitive quantity adjustment and an amplification mechanism via the huge overhang of index-linked gilts that increase government spending at the RPI rate if prices change.
Unfortunately to deliver investment growth in the UK will require shutting down consumption in areas people would rather not. We have been eating our seed corn for far too long.
That requires an even more radical approach than abandoning the "we haven't any money" fallacy.
In healthcare, for example, it would require a new NHS act transferring the private medical system to the NHS - as we did with the cottage hospitals in 1948. We all know that it's the same consultants in private and public and the private system just allows you to "jump the queue" because you have money. And we know from the death of NHS dentistry where that slow burn ends up.
We can't spend our way out of the NHS problem. We have to physically take the resources from those who would reserve them for themselves and make them available to all - on the basis of need rather than ability to pay.
Unfortunately the blinkered hear the words "private health care" and need the smelling salts to recover. They think only of America when they hear those words. They don't think of numerous European countries who have a private system mixed with government subsidies. The Netherlands for example is usually in the World top 3 for health care and yes you pay to see the GP (shock horror) and the poor get it paid for them. The current NhS is a disaster. And who are the fools who think it's free?? It's an enormous tax burden.
It's more that those who cry "private health care" haven't thought it through very well.
Private health care in the UK, like the dentistry system, doesn't add any physical capacity. It simply leaches off the public system and smothers it. The private system trains no doctors or health care workers and builds nothing the state couldn't build itself.
In essence it is like the Fast Track queue at Alton Towers. It allows those with money to jump the queue to access the limited facilities that actually exist.
The European systems aren't anywhere near as marvellous as advocates insist. The results are a function of high level of investment over decades. In reality capacity is used up in the Netherlands - hence their recent report on the shortage of GPs, and the private funding mechanism wastes around 2-3% of health expenditure on pointless contract negotiations and insurance claims. All people that could be better employed doing something useful.
The problem we have here is lack of investment - all the way across the board
I disagree about private health care leeching off the system. Things could work more efficiently as with many instances of privatisation. I'm not saying it will provide all the answers necessarily and everything is a compromise but the current system is definitely not working in the UK. There is no queue jumping for the rich in the Netherlands. Check their health outcomes. They have a world class system by comparison. I'd like to see how much the UK wastes in a similar vein. Negotiating contracts may cost money but the resulting work could save millions. If you don't need to negotiate because you have a government behind you then more money will be wasted. You seem to imply that anything government run will be cheaper when in fact privatisation of numerous industries creates incentive and streamlining. The blob is a great example that anything government run sucks money in as no one is accountable for their performance.
Are you sure there's a shortage of GPs in The Netherlandsor is there an excess of people? Immigration into the Netherlands in recent years has surpassed that of the UK in terms of percentage of population and is growing rapidly. Especially in the south with ASML shipping tens of thousands of workers in from India. They are certainly not building infrastructure to match. Meanwhile in the UK, the government chooses to import already trained doctors from third world counties rather than pay to train more of our own (there's no shortage of people willing and capable) because it's cheaper to do so. The result is sub standard doctors in many cases and third world countries losing their talented people leaving them even worse off. The left always moan about colonisation and plundering the third world in the past yet here they are still doing it.
As I said the Netherlands health outcomes are a response to sustained investment over decades, which we haven't done in the UK. But now the cracks are starting to show due to the failure of the Eurozone to grow significantly. Hence the 2025 dutch report on GPs, which I'm sure you've read if you are commenting.
The rich queue jump in the UK by leaching off the public system. It's the same consultants in the public and private sphere. There is no mechanism by which competition can have any effect without excess capacity to supply, and there aren't enough doctors to go around.
There is no magic in market provision. It is more efficient if, and only if, there is excess capacity to supply and sufficient competitors. Otherwise it drifts rapidly to oligopoly and monopoly - as we have seen with the train operators.
The UK's capacity to train doctors is limited by the training places available in the system. To train people you have to do *less* doctoring and more training. Unfortunately we are now caught in a trap of having insufficient doctors to do the work let alone free up time to train anybody. Getting out of that requires rather more thought than shouting "private health care".
Remember that in the UK *all* GPs are already private businesses and always have been since the beginning of the NHS. And they are hardly a resounding advert for private markets.
Are you saying the rich should fund their own healthcare. I don't disagree with this but people aren't going to shell out money if they're not forced to. That is already happening a lot because those who can afford to would do so. Perhaps the state can offer tax deductions to encourage them to do more.
I never shouted "private healthcare" has all the answers. I merely meant it is an alternative model that could work. I don't agree that you need excess capacity to improve. Incentive can lead to efficiency savings thereby increasing capacity.
Yes we have too few training places and these should have been vastly expanded ahead of now. However, no government is interested in fixing this problem. If they were they would import double the doctors from abroad, thereby freeing up English ones to train new doctors. Alternatively they could temporarily reduce capacity to train new doctors. Yes some people would suffer but everything's a compromise And every system with finite resources has winners and losers. But what is not a solution is the status quo because many more people will suffer in the long run.
Successive wishy washy PMs and governments have created this situation. Banning all foreigner nationals including illegal immigrants and refugees from subsidised and free NHS care would be a good start to freeing up capacity along with lowering immigration to near zero until infrastructure has had time to catch up.
I'm sure you don't agree that excess capacity to supply is how competition works. However then you can't point to a functional mechanism by which the improvements will come about. All you have is a quasi-religious belief.
However that is the same warm words approach we see with Burnham, and warm words don't butter any parsnips
Some very interesting ideas there Neil Wilson. I like the suggestion that we should nationalise private health capacity - but not entirely sure about a general consumption-reduction policy.
I fully agree with you on the economic ideas you've set out there Paul and of course I agre that our Government under the new leadership needs to follow these principles.
However, Andy Burnham is somewhat constrained by the fiscal promises made in our 2024 election manifesto and so he won't be able to fully move in that direction until he's secured his own mandate.
I'm hoping he'll call an early election hopefully perhaps by this time next year and in which he can set out a much more positive and expansive national plan - along those lines as you've described.
As regards to Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood's immigration reforms, I think Burnham has already stated his support for the new regulations.
I'm not sure I fully agree with you on your counterposing of the social agenda versus the economic agenda though. I think the most successful Labour Governments have managed to combine both. For example, the post-WWII Attlee administration also decolonised and transformed the Empire into an equal Commonwealth of Nations, while also creating the NHS and nationalising broad swathes of UK industry. Attlee himself, after retiring from front-line politics, became an early campaigner for gay rights.
The Wilson years saw several examples of socially progressive legislation, while also prioritising full employment and keeping a positive manufacturing balance of trade.
And under Blair, workers gained the minimum wage and statutory paid leave while gay people also saw the abolition of Thatcher's 'Section 28' and gained the right to inheritance and civil partnerships.
My point here being that it's possible to win and retain majority electoral support among the people as a whole, while also pursuing both economic and social progress.
When you learn the truth you will know it is not I who is stupid.
Great assessment of ‘the messiah’ Paul and good to see you at Spike Summit on Saturday. Given that national debt is nearly 100% of GDP, can you explain where this ‘massive fiscal capacity’ will come from? Hopefully from major reform of welfare and immigration strategy. Hopefully too on policies to unleash private sector investment, hiring and growth. Interested in what you would do if you were in Burnham’s shoes. Thank you.
Hi, Ann Marie. Good to see you, too. In terms of the 'massive fiscal capacity', this relates to my opinion - shared by a growing number of economists across the world - that a sovereign, currency-issuing nation need never constrained by a lack of money. Such a country may be constrained by a lack of other resources - labour, skills, land, machinery, etc - but not actual money. I would like to see the government use its huge fiscal capacity to invest in our productive industries (though obviously while guarding against inflation). I would recommend reading some stuff on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). It explains what I articulate above. This is a good introduction to it: https://gimms.org.uk/
Thank you so much for taking the time to explain and for the link. Interesting … I will certain read more.
Perhaps the Burnham Government could set out a new manifesto for the next election proposing a series of ring-fenced income and/or wealth taxes specifically aimed at defence, health, energy, transport and housing.
If all you and your fellow Tories are going to focus on is welfare cuts, then what you're saying is the poorest have to pay for all of this. Typical Toryism, but very unfair.
Can we just cancel the foreign aid budget for a start?