Callum Price: Why, when it comes to markets, does Andy want to burn’em to the ground?
This isn't complicated—it's willpower.
Callum Price is Director of Communications at the Institute of Economic Affairs, and a former Government special adviser.
For someone who talks so much about how much he hates Westminster, Andy Burnham really enjoys popping down to SW1 to give a speech to an establishment think tank – particularly if there are live questions about the Labour leadership swirling around.
Last month, it was the IFS to talk about his brand of ‘Manchesterism’. This week it was the Resolution Foundation to discuss re-focusing politics on ‘un-sung Britain’. Among the usual huff and puff about the evils of unregulated markets (are these unregulated markets in the room with us now, Andy?) and how good the buses in Manchester are, he sought to address his previous comments about being ‘in hock to the bond markets’.
He never meant that we should ignore the bond markets, or even blame them, his clarification goes. It is the decisions of politicians that have led us to being in hock to those markets, and it is only the decisions of politicians that can get us out of this situation.
So far, so good. Next time the Labour Party is in crisis, he is welcome to come and speak to the IEA about how politicians need to get serious about our debt and spending problems.
But then it reverts.
The decisions that he wants politicians to take are not, in fact, to reduce spending; but to spend more. He argues that if we give away control of the essentials, we give away control of their costs. The key to getting costs down then, is to take control back through compulsory purchases and nationalisation. The markets, I’m sure, will be delighted.
The example he gives is housing: it is hard to control public spending when you need to chase private rented sector rents through the benefits system. He quotes research by the National Housing Federation that suggests building 90,000 social homes could save the Exchequer £3.3 billion in reduced Universal Credit claims over the next thirty years. Burnham extrapolates that to pay for a new target he sets, of building 500,000 new social homes by 2030, which he says will save £18 billion in the long run.
The same NHF report puts the cost of building those 90,000 social homes to the government at £12 billion, so following Burnham’s logic his target would require an outlay of £66 billion now, to save £18 billion over the next thirty years.
These numbers won’t exactly fill our creditors with confidence, but Andy has a plan to make us think more long-term and in a more market-friendly way.
In his mind, the broken Westminster political system has led to short-termism and instability, prevented politicians taking sensible long-term decisions and thus made the markets view us with distrust.
His diagnosis may not be entirely wrong – politics incentivises …
This isn't complicated—it's willpower.
Callum Price is Director of Communications at the Institute of Economic Affairs, and a former Government special adviser.
For someone who talks so much about how much he hates Westminster, Andy Burnham really enjoys popping down to SW1 to give a speech to an establishment think tank – particularly if there are live questions about the Labour leadership swirling around.
Last month, it was the IFS to talk about his brand of ‘Manchesterism’. This week it was the Resolution Foundation to discuss re-focusing politics on ‘un-sung Britain’. Among the usual huff and puff about the evils of unregulated markets (are these unregulated markets in the room with us now, Andy?) and how good the buses in Manchester are, he sought to address his previous comments about being ‘in hock to the bond markets’.
He never meant that we should ignore the bond markets, or even blame them, his clarification goes. It is the decisions of politicians that have led us to being in hock to those markets, and it is only the decisions of politicians that can get us out of this situation.
So far, so good. Next time the Labour Party is in crisis, he is welcome to come and speak to the IEA about how politicians need to get serious about our debt and spending problems.
But then it reverts.
The decisions that he wants politicians to take are not, in fact, to reduce spending; but to spend more. He argues that if we give away control of the essentials, we give away control of their costs. The key to getting costs down then, is to take control back through compulsory purchases and nationalisation. The markets, I’m sure, will be delighted.
The example he gives is housing: it is hard to control public spending when you need to chase private rented sector rents through the benefits system. He quotes research by the National Housing Federation that suggests building 90,000 social homes could save the Exchequer £3.3 billion in reduced Universal Credit claims over the next thirty years. Burnham extrapolates that to pay for a new target he sets, of building 500,000 new social homes by 2030, which he says will save £18 billion in the long run.
The same NHF report puts the cost of building those 90,000 social homes to the government at £12 billion, so following Burnham’s logic his target would require an outlay of £66 billion now, to save £18 billion over the next thirty years.
These numbers won’t exactly fill our creditors with confidence, but Andy has a plan to make us think more long-term and in a more market-friendly way.
In his mind, the broken Westminster political system has led to short-termism and instability, prevented politicians taking sensible long-term decisions and thus made the markets view us with distrust.
His diagnosis may not be entirely wrong – politics incentivises …
Callum Price: Why, when it comes to markets, does Andy want to burn’em to the ground?
This isn't complicated—it's willpower.
Callum Price is Director of Communications at the Institute of Economic Affairs, and a former Government special adviser.
For someone who talks so much about how much he hates Westminster, Andy Burnham really enjoys popping down to SW1 to give a speech to an establishment think tank – particularly if there are live questions about the Labour leadership swirling around.
Last month, it was the IFS to talk about his brand of ‘Manchesterism’. This week it was the Resolution Foundation to discuss re-focusing politics on ‘un-sung Britain’. Among the usual huff and puff about the evils of unregulated markets (are these unregulated markets in the room with us now, Andy?) and how good the buses in Manchester are, he sought to address his previous comments about being ‘in hock to the bond markets’.
He never meant that we should ignore the bond markets, or even blame them, his clarification goes. It is the decisions of politicians that have led us to being in hock to those markets, and it is only the decisions of politicians that can get us out of this situation.
So far, so good. Next time the Labour Party is in crisis, he is welcome to come and speak to the IEA about how politicians need to get serious about our debt and spending problems.
But then it reverts.
The decisions that he wants politicians to take are not, in fact, to reduce spending; but to spend more. He argues that if we give away control of the essentials, we give away control of their costs. The key to getting costs down then, is to take control back through compulsory purchases and nationalisation. The markets, I’m sure, will be delighted.
The example he gives is housing: it is hard to control public spending when you need to chase private rented sector rents through the benefits system. He quotes research by the National Housing Federation that suggests building 90,000 social homes could save the Exchequer £3.3 billion in reduced Universal Credit claims over the next thirty years. Burnham extrapolates that to pay for a new target he sets, of building 500,000 new social homes by 2030, which he says will save £18 billion in the long run.
The same NHF report puts the cost of building those 90,000 social homes to the government at £12 billion, so following Burnham’s logic his target would require an outlay of £66 billion now, to save £18 billion over the next thirty years.
These numbers won’t exactly fill our creditors with confidence, but Andy has a plan to make us think more long-term and in a more market-friendly way.
In his mind, the broken Westminster political system has led to short-termism and instability, prevented politicians taking sensible long-term decisions and thus made the markets view us with distrust.
His diagnosis may not be entirely wrong – politics incentivises …
0 Comments
0 Shares
40 Views
0 Reviews
