“Andy Burnham’s line about reversing ‘40 years of neo-liberalism’ – i.e. since the Thatcher government’s reforms – is beginning to grate somewhat. ‘Britain took a series of wrong turns in the 1980s,’ he told us, while accepting the Labour leadership. We ‘surrendered control’ of water and electricity, while ‘large parts of Britain were deindustrialised’. It might have been an appropriate line for Labour when fighting the 1997 general election. For Burnham to deliver it today is a little ridiculous, given that Labour has been in power for 15 of those past 40 years. Indeed, Burnham himself was in the cabinet for three of those years. He appears to be confessing to having been part of the neoliberalist regime which ruined Britain.
Burnham is a substitute prime minister in a party which two years ago won 34 per cent of the vote in a general election, yet you would think from the tone of his address today that he had just won a large personal mandate. He has none, and that is not a great basis on which to announce a grand plan to reverse 40 years of anything: neoliberalism, socialism of whatever else. Moreover, Burnham appeared to confirm that he will not be seeking a mandate. After paying a warm tribute to what he saw as the great achievements of Keir Starmer – the man he has just deposed – he said that the people of Makerfield had spoken on behalf of all forgotten communities. Really? I don’t recall the people of Scunthorpe, Teesside or Barrow in Furness asking Burnham to speak on their behalf. In reality, Burnham simply held onto an existing Labour seat, and our new PM is going to treat that as carte blanche to reverse 40 years of economic policy.”
– Ross Clark, Spectator.
“large parts of Britain were deindustrialised’
Writing it like that makes it a transient verb, makes it read that it was done to them. In reality, it wasn’t done to them, it happened. Industries realised it was no longer viable to exist, so ceased to exist. They were not killed off, they died.
It is hard to believe that things could get any worse in Britain than they are. But when Andy Burnham says stuff like that, it makes me a believer.
For many years taxes on investment in Britain were crippling, and trade unions were given absurd powers – including the power to use paramilitary tactics (“picket lines”) to obstruct the entrances to a place of business (that “Collective Bargaining” is a set of government granted powers, and is a machine for creating institutional UNEMPLOYMENT, is something that economists know – but most of them are too gutless to say). Given this situation it is a wonder than any manufacturing industry survived at all in Britain.
Margaret Thatcher was NOT responsible for these things – although it is true that for the couple of years of the government the lady led, nothing was done about the unions (thanks to James Prior) and overall taxes (including the sales tax – VAT) actually went up – due to the wildly over praised chancellor Howe.
However, as Dr Butler of the Adam Smith Institute recently reminded people (including me – I am ashamed to say I had forgotten some of it) after Prior and Howe were sidelined, a lot was achieved in the 1980s. By the time Margaret Thatcher “left office” (i.e. was betrayed – back-stabbed) in 1990, the state was smaller in size and scope relative to the economy – living standards were much higher in 1990 than they had been in 1979.
As for “Andy” Burnham – he is a waste of space, there is little point in discussing him – other than to agree with Fraser Orr – YES things are going to get worse here, a lot worse.
Those who can should leave – the rest of us will suffer, more than we already are suffering.
Y’all need to return to the days of huge mass outdoor protest rallies that make the government sufficiently nervous to pause just a bit.
Labour has no fear of losing the citizenry right now. Their rule is baked in until 2029. Bring back fear.
Entirely correct.
@jgh
They were not killed off, they died.
It is also worth saying — this is a GOOD thing. Inefficient industries dying off means freeing up those poorly used resources to generate a higher level of return, and consequently a higher level of wealth for society as a whole. It sucks if you lose your job or your investment, but over time these losses are more than compensated by the growth.
However, it is a bad thing for politicians because real people loose their jobs and have to experience turmoil. These people vote and politicians respond to votes not to doing what is right and best. In the richer economy that comes from this process of creative destruction the people who lost their jobs will eventually get through the turmoil and be better off, certainly on average. But politics does not measure this. The whole political system has completely screwed up incentives which is why they do such stupid things. And it is also why “the government is best which governs the least.”
“Too big to fail” is one of the worst economic polices to ever have been implemented.
Indeed Fraser: I think it was a bon mot of Nigel Lawson’s that those lamenting the “collapse of manufacturing” seldom clarified whther they were talking about manufacturing output or of manufacturing employment.
Creative destruction based on progress – a better way to do things! – is good.
But destruction due to the costs imposed by partisan political decisions? Maybe not so much.
“They were not killed off, they died.”
Sort-of. But a large part of their cause of death was the actions of the workers in those industries, combined with the decisions of politicians. So in that sense, it was not a passive death, an inevitable response to economic conditions – the buggy-whip industry “died” because there was no longer a demand for buggy whips. Rather, it was an active “killing” – those working in these industries, and those controlling their fates, combined to do things which caused those industries to fail. The UK auto industry did not die because nobody wanted to buy cars anymore, and the UK steel industry did not die because nobody’s buying steel. They were killed by a long sequence of poor decisions.
llater,
llamas
The United Kingdom was number one in manufacturing till about 1890 when the United States overtook the United Kingdom.
Even as late as the 1930s manufacturing productivity (per person) was twice as high in Britain as in Germany (a surprise to those who believe the myth of a National Socialist economic miracle).
However, the post World War II experience has been one of long, relative, decline.
The United Kingdom now is not really in the top ten of manufacturing nations (although it is sometimes listed as being so), but to blame this on Margaret Thatcher is utterly absurd.
As for the proposed policies (a continuation of the present policies – the policies that have been followed since Margaret Thatcher was betrayed in 1990) – they will make everything worse, higher government spending, higher taxes, more regulations, and more union power, is the opposite of what is required.
Unions are about to destroy the mining industry in Australia
Rossini – that is very unfortunate.
If we had had 40 years of Thatcherism he may have a point. But we got maybe 10 years of Thatcherism and 30 years of Blairism.
If we had had 40 years of Thatcherism, we would be in a much better place, both socially and economically.
Daniel – correct Sir, and very well put.