When & how will Burnham’s honeymoon come to an end?

[Theblueyonder]

Burnham’s leadership has been relatively free of drama, so far, and certainly when compared to his hapless predecessor.

What do we think will represent Burnham’s first real test? The budget, or something else?

There’s no sign than they aren’t tbh. I think the OP is thinking more about his test with the public mood.

But again, what opposition party has a credible alternative plan on the economy? The Conservatives talk about fiscal responsibility but it’s hard to take that seriously, when they’re opposing adjusting the triple lock (an adjustment all serious economists across the political spectrum think is necessary) and are handing out the kind of tax breaks for high earners that might make sense in good economic times but are very, very hard to justify as things stand. The financial mismanagement of COVID and the Liz Truss budget mean that “but we’re Conservatives” is just not enough to calm the markets any more, and I think the latest polling shows - for now - the electorate trust Labour over the Conservatives on the economy.

Better than you apparently. The global economy is fucked right now. All the wealthiest countries are struggling. The IMF can’t bail the whole world out.

The global economy is not fucked and there are plenty of countries and sectors doing really really well. Just look at Poland as an example in Europe. There is plenty of growth in Asia and the BRICS nations. The US is growing strongly too.

But here in the UK, our crippling level of welfare payments, combined with way too much red tape and restrictions on business and entrepreneurship, and add to that the most expensive electricity in the world, make our manufacturing, our business and our economy uncompetitive.

And Liz Truss is a total red herring. Her economic policies for growth were sound, just that she tried to deploy them too quickly and too clumsily, and she failed to communicate the benefits properly. And she was shafted by bias globalist interests that control the financial markets, which sought to overturn UK democracy. A quick analysis here

www.reaction.life/p/did-the-bank-of-england-do-for-truss-rather-than-the-financial-markets

The US debt is higher per capita than the UK’s. The global economy is in the gutter. And you have the absolute audacity to tell me I don’t understand economics. I didn’t mention Truss, by the way, but your support for her economic lunacy tells me everything I need to know.

I think rushing through legislation to AVOID having people showing ID to vote should raise some eyebrows

if it doesn’t, we’re fucked

You do know nobody had to produce id to vote before 2023?

The US economy is growing because of business friendly policies and cheap energy.

It all depends what the debt is used for, and this impacts what it costs a country to borrow.

Debt can be good if you use it to invest in infrastructure, grow your economy, etc and the markets take a favourable view of this. They also take a favourable view if the government has a plan and strong track record for growth as there is in the US, but not in the UK at present.

Debt can be bad when it is used to piss it up the wall on benefits, net-zero, third world migrants, growing the unproductive public sector, and paying the interest payments on your existing debt. But sadly this is the current UK way under Labour and the previous Tories. And Burnham seems way out of his depth - a man without a plan.

To simplify it for you, since you clearly struggle to understand, if you borrow money for an unspecified use then you generally get charged a high interest rate because the lender has less confidence they will get their money back (e.g. a credit card debt to go on holiday). If you borrow against a house for a mortgage then the interest rate is many times lower because there is something fundamental to back up that debt and a proven plan to pay it down.

No point in engaging with someone who defends Truss. It kind of negates anything else you have to offer.

Sure, you keep believing all you hear in the mainstream news if it makes you feel better. I've actually a degree in economics, but you seem to know more. Like banging your head against a wall trying to educate the terminally brainwashed.

Don’t bother then. Nobody asked you to.

Classy!

Burnham can’t be held responsible for a decades long failure of infrastructure. He also can’t do much to change it without cross party support for the money it will cost.

Between Burnham and Trump, the blame lies 100% with Trump.

All Trump is doing is putting the US first, exposing the UK's weakness and disastrous net-zero energy policy as a byproduct. Shame that Burnham, Starmer, and the preceding Tory government could not put the UK and it's people first too.

Instead we seem wedded to Net-Zero ideology, and an ideological wet-dream to turn the UK into an increasingly authoritarian and socialist hell-hole full of surveillance, rules and red-tape restricting growth, high energy costs, unemployment, third world crime and benefits claimants.

The last two Labour governments crashed the economy on their watch. Burnham seems determined to go for the hat-trick.

The IMF don’t have the funds to bail out the UK even if they wanted to, I’m afraid.

Quite, but they can force the government to take drastic action to calm the markets. Austerity or steroids.

I understand your argument, but there are also sound economic arguments that spending on public services - including benefits - is an investment too, in human capital. A healthy, financially stable workforce is more productive, and more able to spend, which lower income families do. On top of that, punitive cuts are economically counter productive because they just cost shift, so the state end up spending more money on policing, emergency medical care etc. And as for net zero, if we don’t invest in industries like carbon capture, offshore wind, and hydrogen fuel, we risk falling behind our international competitors and ending up relying permanently on foreign technology. A green energy strategy, is ultimately a growth strategy.

And, above all, I just don’t think the majority of the British public want a U.S style economy, where growth means the rich keep getting richer, with no improvement in living standards for the majority of the public.

You are confusing a little between the fundamental principles of economics, and the results of bad policy making by governments.

A rushed green strategy without proper plan for a gradual and sustainable transition is a recipe for economic ruin and the reason why the UK now has the highest electricity prices of any major economy rendering our business and industry uncompetitive.

Carbon capture has never been proven economically viable or remotely successful anywhere it has been tried before.

You need to understand that all wealth ultimately is a function of transitioning the use of energy into products and services. Add undue friction, and it stifles wealth creation. And governments do not create wealth, only private businesses and enterprise can do that. The more wealth a country generates through it's businesses that also employ people, the more it can afford to spend on public services. Whether it chooses to do that is another matter.

@Justinthekitchen - sorry, I forgot to quote.

I understand your opinion - but I just don’t share it. And, currently, I don’t think the majority of the British public do either. So, I guess, for me the answer to the original question remains: the Prime Minister’s “honeymoon period” will be over when one of his political opponents presents a vision for Britain that the public like better than they like Andy Burnham’s.

It's not so much my opinion as such, just the opinion I have formed by listening to some of the most senior and experienced economists in the UK and beyond, and the principles, history and evidence drawn from real world policy examples that have either worked or not worked in the past.

But of course you are perfectly entitled to disagree with any of it if you so choose or think you know better.

Andy Burnham has not presented any vision apart from more state control of everything, and of course the un-democratic proposal that we should return to the EU, despite most of the countries in the EU starting to move further to the right politically as their populations slowly realise that left-wing or centrist policies have failed them. Being unelected, Andy Burnham is an illegitimate PM in the eyes of most, and he has absolutely no mandate for anything he proposes.

I don’t think there is any evidence that the Prime Minister is, “an illegitimate PM in the eyes of most”. On the contrary, I think most people understand how our political system works, and that you elect a party of government, and not a Prime Minister. I really do think Andy Burnham’s political opponents would be doing better if they spent less energy pretending the prime minister is less popular than he clearly is, and more energy into putting forward a positive, pragmatic vision of their own.

He is illegitimate. He has no mandate for what he is proposing. He and the rest of his champagne-socialist, anti-British, two-tier, ideologically driven, student identity politics, globalist scum, needs to be gone and quickly before this country descends even further into the socialist authoritarian mire.

Hopefully whichever government replaces them has at least one member of their cabinet who has experience of running a business and places sound fiscal policy, and tried and tested solutions above feelings, I'm a jolly northerner, and 'hope'.

You have clearly no idea how British politics work.

He is illegitimate. He does not represent the majority of the people of the UK. He has stated today that he wants closer ties with the EU, and that "Brexit has done more harm than good". From the man who promised the people of Makerfield that he wouldn't reopen the Brexit debate in order to get elected in a Leave voting area. Much like his predecessor, he's a pathalogical liar.

I stand by my previous comment.