So today was Mr Andy Burnham's first day at the office as it were. He's been PM for around six weeks, but today is the first day he got to face Parliament. There has been some criticism of this gap,but I have to say I think it is rather sensible. It is not a trivial job and he needs to get on top of his briefs. One of my biggest criticisms of the UK system is that Parliament is as much about theatre as it is about actual proper governance. Sir Keir Stramer showed just how hard it is to be PM with a charisma bypass. It is very easy to conclude that an extremely competent PM is useless if they are bad at dealing with the House.
The problem the UK has at the moment is that we have a whole swathe of massive decisions for our politicians to take, that will require tough decisions and these will affect our lives for decades. However, the electoral cycle means that Andy Burnham has two years to convince us he's the man for the job. Everyone on all sides of the house, who is a serious politician, knows we have to massively increase spending on things like defence, Adult social care, the NHS, schools, roads, railways, airports, water, electricity and gas, or the whole thing is going to fall apart. All of this costs serious money and so big tax rises are needed. Sadly, no politician has the guts to tell the truth. If they did, it would be suicidal as the opposition would crucify them. The alternative is managed decline and failure of the UK as a nation.
The post Thatcherite consensus is one which has ripped the UK apart. The concept that tax rises are a bad thing is a lie that we've all bought into. The right are currently pushing the line that we need more privatisation in the NHS. This ignores the fact that people living in countries where there is not a social healthcare system pay far more and many end up bankrupt when they get ill. We all want to walk the streets safe, but we won't pay for prisons and gaol's to ensure the law is enforced. Do we actually save money? No because we pay a fortune in insurance premiums instead.
We want a railway that runs on time and safely, but we don't want to put in the investment that will deliver this. Does this save money? No, we are chronically inefficient as so many people spend so much time waiting for trains that don't come. The Tory mantra is that Taxes are bad,but they never lay out the consequences of a 'low tax economy'. The say that socialists only want to spend "YOUR MONEY" on services for "SOMEONE ELSE". We buy this old claptrap. We never say "hang on, my insurance premiums are going up due to rising crime, I can't get a doctors appointment and my train was late three times this week, because we don't spend enough monet doing the stuff we need to do as a nation".
I have a theory. I believe that the billionaires who are the biggest beneficiaries of these policies are in fact the biggest parasites of all. Not only are they greedy, but they actually damage the economy. They stockpile their cash ensuring it does not stimiulate the economy. Let me explain, A billion pounds is a thousand million pounds. If we took a billion quid off Britains richest people in taxes, they would not be any worse off materially. They wouldn't notice any material change in the quality of life. If we ere just to go out and give this to the million worst off families with children in the UK, a thousand quid each, this would massively improve their quality of living. They would put the money back into the economy and help drive economic growth. Local shops and businesses would get a huge and much needed injection of cash and the children of the families would see massive benefits.
Now I can already hear the squeals of the right wing press, who work for billionaire press barons, and the bots controlled by them on Twitter. Why should 'hard working people' have to give up their hard earned cash to subsidise the poor? Well mostly because it is the right thing to do, but the idea isn't unique. When Rishi Sunak was Boris Johnson's chancellor, he did something similar with the "Eat out to help out" policy, to get us out and spending again. This policy largely benefitted the middle classes who like a bit of free dinner. But it did stimulate economic growth and saved a few businesses. It is now much ridiculed, but it gave the economy a massive boost. I am not an economist, I am a musician, but I understand the way the economy works, as I was born and raised in a family that ran small businesses. What you want is ordinary people to have cash, if you want a strong economy. Ultimately that bebefits everyone, even the mega rich.
I do not begrudge the likes of Elon Musk and Bill Gates their billions. I just think that they should share a little bit of it around. They would not have to go without. You need people like them to take risks, start business, come up with innovation. They should be handsomely rewarded. But I do think that when they are sitting on piles of money that they will not spend in a dozen lifetimes, something is wrong.
All of this probably explains why I'd make a lousy politician and why it is Andy Burnham and not me in No 10. I wish him well and I hope you do, even if you can't stand him or his politics. The reason is simple. If he screws up, we'll all suffer. One last thing. I suspect that Andy Burnham is the first PM since John Major that I think you could have a pint and a chat with and it wouldn't be excruciating.

