'It is more dangerous to give birth in the UK today than it was in 1985. That's hard to believe, isn't it?'
@SkySarahJane opens tonight's special programme which is highlighting the pressures facing maternity services in the UK
Watch live: https://t.co/o2tDbgRHLe
Slot sacking is ludicrous. Look at the history of any club that has had a player die pre/mid season. Unsurprisingly they all underperform. Needed another season then judge him.
If the Burnham critique of Blair was he was silent on inequality, then the critique of Burnham’s essay in The Times is how poorly it understands the drivers of economic growth. His diagnosis is that good growth stems from (local) control of economic essentials.
I’m afraid tight control of the planning system has led to UK building houses at half the rate of the G7 - fuelling rent inflation. Control of low pay rates has accelerated the rise of youth unemployment and NEETs (Milburn Report). Control of energy permissioning has led to the highest electricity costs in the IEA, and control of capital allocation has shrunk bank lending to the economy to the lowest in 30 years.
The problem is that all these started off as noble microeconomic aims (preventing urban sprawl, reducing in-work poverty, net zero, reducing risky lending), justifying tight control, that have combined/ run too far to now create a huge macroeconomic headwind in the form of elevated inflation and stagnant per capita growth.
I get it, Burnham must knock on 1000s of doors in and around Manchester and be told that voters don’t feel they have any control over their economic conditions. Hell, this was why “take back control” was such a seductive soundbite a decade ago.
The argument to take to the country could be we will be a centre-left govt that enables much faster delivery of housing, pluralism of energy, and reduced frictions to deploying capital. And make it much easier to employ young people. And that, in turn, will reduce inflation in key staples/ raise living standards.
That argument isn’t being made from Makerfield it seems.
Unit Labour Costs in the UK have gone from some of the most competitive in the G7, to the worst since the introduction of the National Living Wage in 2016 (and amplified by employer NICs, and the recent ERA). Yet politicians trumpet it as one of their signature achievements. The overall package has made employing young people increasingly unattractive for employers.
Growth in owned outright, decline in owned with mortgage & rise in private renting shows huge generational change. Older groups used decade of v low interest rates to pay off mortgage. Young can't get on housing ladder at all.
Had not realised social renting has not declined.
Tony Blair is talking about UK politics here, but he could very easily be talking about UK economics - perhaps this was deliberate. His essay is one hell of a good read: https://t.co/AecJBS06Xs
Just finished watching Legends on @netflix
Best piece of TV I've seen in years since series 1 of SAS - Rogue Heros. Spectacular acting and production that previously only the Beeb could have made. Bravo 👏
If Labour moves even further to the left it will be the end, permanently.
A lot of people voted for this government thinking they were getting a Blair/Brown philosophy adapted to modern times. It turned out a lot more left wing than expected.
Going further left is oblivion.
I would suggest this diagnosis from Rayner is for an economy some parts of the Labour Party believe exists - not the reality of one where the tax take is already at an 80 year high, concentration of tax on high earners & on assets is already high by international standards. The minimum wage has moved way higher than the international benchmark, and growth is clearly impaired by the frictions of the high cost of energy, building & capital. I would predict that if the Rayner statement became a detailed policy platform you would see the Gilt vs Other Sovereign spread widen, not narrow.