Do we actually think he believes any of it? I think if you asked him one on one, lights down low and late at night, as he sips on the Chardonnay he’s been craving all day after having to be seen to drink IPA’s to keep up his image of being a “normal northern bloke”, I reckon he’d say “it’s all a load of sh*te isn’t it”.
Unlike Starmer, who thought he was saving us all, Burnham knows it’s all over and is probably looking to get the last locked in payday for his local regions, and in doing so entrenching his own value to them, that he can.
One point I would focus on if I were Reform HQ is the Blind Date point. When I first read it in another publication, I felt a slight revulsion. How can you let your long-term partner go on a dating game show? It smacks of someone who doesn’t take things seriously and would generate a quite visceral reaction of “ew” amongst the public I believe. The problem is, I presume, Nigel’s own romantic history might not be lily-white.
I think that’s the difference between Starmer and Burnham actually.
Starmer is arguably worse than Burnham because he generally believes you are a right-wing racist for questioning immigration. He believes Islamophobia is the biggest cultural issue in the UK. He looks down on you for not believing in the multicultural melting pot, how could you be so evil?
Burnham doesn’t believe any of that, particularly not with the pious zeal Starmer does. He just knows the following:
1. He’s not going to get another chance to be prime minister and the Labour Party in its current guise is so sheeplike and groupthink, lacking in real leaders, it will fall behind a “Dear Leader” with minimal resistance
2. Given it is so groupthink, Burnham will have to not agitate the herd, with the best way to do this being minimal actual policy and more vibes, “pints on the terraces” etc.
3. He’s playing for time, not to win, because he knows deep down he can’t win. Starmer, by contrast, not only thought he could win but thought “to lose” (as far as he saw it) would be a victory for all the evils of society. I doubt Andy will lose anywhere near the same amount of sleep over it all when he leaves Number 10 as Kier most probably will in the coming weeks/months/years.
«It is for this reason that since 1929, Britain has only ever been more involved in the business of redistributing local revenues around the country.»
By writing "ever" our blogger has forgotten that a significant achievement of the Conservatives since 2010 was to cut local transfers of rates to the central government and central transfers to local councils under the "Formula Grant" to very little indeed, and in 2015 he announced that soon local councils would stand on their own because of the "phasing out the main grant from Whitehall".
Since Thatcher and Blair there has been a long term policy to segregate UK residential areas by income (most obvious in new estates being targeted at a single income band) in order to then devolve taxation and spending to local councils to prevent areas where affluent middle-class and upper-class people live from supporting areas where workers live (besides which affluent "decent" middle class person would want to live next to some "rough" working class families?).
Burnham is no Corbyn and knows very well that any proposed reversal of that policy would mean he would be targeted with the same treatment dished out to Corbyn. Even his talk about building a lot of new social housing is not serious as he cannot do that before the next elections. Regardless nearly all governments of the past some decades including Starmer's had a target of new house (not social) building that was purely for show and never reached.
«any form of devolution in Britain will only ever lead to a greater extraction from the metropole [...] mostly spaffing London’s money at the wall»
It is unfortunate that our author is a victim of the common propaganda that "London" makes a lot of money that is redistributed to other areas of the UK, which means that they are also victim of the other common propaganda that confuses GDI with GDP. By the same argument Belgrave and Mayfair are places that make a lot of money that is redistributed to other areas of "London" but they are nearly purely residential areas that do have nearly no economic activity other than a few retail shops.
"London" merely *appears* to make a lot of money only because a lot of rich people live in London and many big corporate headquarters are in London and therefore income (GDI) that is produced (GDP) elsewhere is merely *booked* in London. The biggest economic activities of London are:
* Property, which is purely redistributive and so contributes nothing to GDP.
* Corporate and other services for domestic customers, like law, accounting, finance, which are a cost of production and should be *subtracted* from GDP.
* Corporate and other services for foreign customers, which are a cost to production but to other countries, and so do count as UK and "London" GDP.
Put another way "London" is more where owners and executives spend their rents received from elsewhere than where producers make goods or services and generate UK GDP but are a minority of "London"'s economy.
A long time ago before Thatcher and Blair "London" also had a vast range of productive activities but they have largely disappeared as part of the long-standing policy to rid the UK of all industries most easily infected by labour unions.
Good run down. Well noted that Burnham and Rotherham's book shows it's age: the time of idolising Germany either for it's booming industry or alleged 'grown up' politics is well and truly over despite being prominent as little a half a decade ago. A breakdown of this tendency from the 1980s to the 2020s would probably make a good article in its own right.
An aside, while the author leaves it up for discussion, I'd argue the better parallel with Northern England (or at least the urban Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds core) is the Rhineland rather than the old GDR. In both cases, the big cities are pretty affluent outside of some problem estates, but the once prosperous mill and mining towns around them are generally rather deprived, with some exceptions in both cases. (I wonder if there is a German Hebden Bridge?)
Do we actually think he believes any of it? I think if you asked him one on one, lights down low and late at night, as he sips on the Chardonnay he’s been craving all day after having to be seen to drink IPA’s to keep up his image of being a “normal northern bloke”, I reckon he’d say “it’s all a load of sh*te isn’t it”.
Unlike Starmer, who thought he was saving us all, Burnham knows it’s all over and is probably looking to get the last locked in payday for his local regions, and in doing so entrenching his own value to them, that he can.
One point I would focus on if I were Reform HQ is the Blind Date point. When I first read it in another publication, I felt a slight revulsion. How can you let your long-term partner go on a dating game show? It smacks of someone who doesn’t take things seriously and would generate a quite visceral reaction of “ew” amongst the public I believe. The problem is, I presume, Nigel’s own romantic history might not be lily-white.
Do we actually think that any politician believes anything that they say or write?
I think that’s the difference between Starmer and Burnham actually.
Starmer is arguably worse than Burnham because he generally believes you are a right-wing racist for questioning immigration. He believes Islamophobia is the biggest cultural issue in the UK. He looks down on you for not believing in the multicultural melting pot, how could you be so evil?
Burnham doesn’t believe any of that, particularly not with the pious zeal Starmer does. He just knows the following:
1. He’s not going to get another chance to be prime minister and the Labour Party in its current guise is so sheeplike and groupthink, lacking in real leaders, it will fall behind a “Dear Leader” with minimal resistance
2. Given it is so groupthink, Burnham will have to not agitate the herd, with the best way to do this being minimal actual policy and more vibes, “pints on the terraces” etc.
3. He’s playing for time, not to win, because he knows deep down he can’t win. Starmer, by contrast, not only thought he could win but thought “to lose” (as far as he saw it) would be a victory for all the evils of society. I doubt Andy will lose anywhere near the same amount of sleep over it all when he leaves Number 10 as Kier most probably will in the coming weeks/months/years.
«It is for this reason that since 1929, Britain has only ever been more involved in the business of redistributing local revenues around the country.»
By writing "ever" our blogger has forgotten that a significant achievement of the Conservatives since 2010 was to cut local transfers of rates to the central government and central transfers to local councils under the "Formula Grant" to very little indeed, and in 2015 he announced that soon local councils would stand on their own because of the "phasing out the main grant from Whitehall".
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/chancellor-unveils-devolution-revolution
Since Thatcher and Blair there has been a long term policy to segregate UK residential areas by income (most obvious in new estates being targeted at a single income band) in order to then devolve taxation and spending to local councils to prevent areas where affluent middle-class and upper-class people live from supporting areas where workers live (besides which affluent "decent" middle class person would want to live next to some "rough" working class families?).
https://blissex.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/humour-bentley-nice_vs_nasty.png
Burnham is no Corbyn and knows very well that any proposed reversal of that policy would mean he would be targeted with the same treatment dished out to Corbyn. Even his talk about building a lot of new social housing is not serious as he cannot do that before the next elections. Regardless nearly all governments of the past some decades including Starmer's had a target of new house (not social) building that was purely for show and never reached.
«any form of devolution in Britain will only ever lead to a greater extraction from the metropole [...] mostly spaffing London’s money at the wall»
It is unfortunate that our author is a victim of the common propaganda that "London" makes a lot of money that is redistributed to other areas of the UK, which means that they are also victim of the other common propaganda that confuses GDI with GDP. By the same argument Belgrave and Mayfair are places that make a lot of money that is redistributed to other areas of "London" but they are nearly purely residential areas that do have nearly no economic activity other than a few retail shops.
"London" merely *appears* to make a lot of money only because a lot of rich people live in London and many big corporate headquarters are in London and therefore income (GDI) that is produced (GDP) elsewhere is merely *booked* in London. The biggest economic activities of London are:
* Property, which is purely redistributive and so contributes nothing to GDP.
* Corporate and other services for domestic customers, like law, accounting, finance, which are a cost of production and should be *subtracted* from GDP.
* Corporate and other services for foreign customers, which are a cost to production but to other countries, and so do count as UK and "London" GDP.
Put another way "London" is more where owners and executives spend their rents received from elsewhere than where producers make goods or services and generate UK GDP but are a minority of "London"'s economy.
A long time ago before Thatcher and Blair "London" also had a vast range of productive activities but they have largely disappeared as part of the long-standing policy to rid the UK of all industries most easily infected by labour unions.
This Northerner, born on the Southern edge of Greater Manchester, loves Manchester and loathes Burnham.
Good run down. Well noted that Burnham and Rotherham's book shows it's age: the time of idolising Germany either for it's booming industry or alleged 'grown up' politics is well and truly over despite being prominent as little a half a decade ago. A breakdown of this tendency from the 1980s to the 2020s would probably make a good article in its own right.
An aside, while the author leaves it up for discussion, I'd argue the better parallel with Northern England (or at least the urban Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds core) is the Rhineland rather than the old GDR. In both cases, the big cities are pretty affluent outside of some problem estates, but the once prosperous mill and mining towns around them are generally rather deprived, with some exceptions in both cases. (I wonder if there is a German Hebden Bridge?)