Richard Adam

'There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.'

Soren Kierkegaard

[Richard Murphy @RichardJMurphy]

As I say on fiscal rules in the glossary to my blog:

"Fiscal rules are targets set by governments to limit borrowing, debt, or deficits over time. They are presented as if they are neutral, technical constraints on what governments can do. In reality, they are arbitrary political choices.Governments adopt and abandon fiscal rules at will. Each new government tends to change the rules it inherits. That alone proves that they are not immutable laws of economics but rhetorical devices designed to give the impression of discipline."

I added:

"The primary function of fiscal rules has been to justify austerity measures. By pretending that there are financial limits to what governments can do, they have provided cover for cuts in public services, social security, and investment in social infrastructure."

Yesterday at the Labour Party's conference in Liverpool, Chancellor John Healey said:

"[T]he Prime Minister and I are in lockstep that we will meet the fiscal rules.That we will maintain control of Britain's finances."

The UK actually has, at present, three fiscal rules:

Rule 1. The current budget should be on course to be in balance or surplus by 2029/30 (‘stability rule')

Rule 2. Net financial debt should fall as a share of the economy in 2029/30 (‘investment rule')

Rule 3. Some types of welfare spending must remain below a pre-specified level (the ‘welfare cap')

To put these another way, they mean:

Rule 1. That the government will stop injecting net new money into the economy by 2029 to support its growth objective, and will rely entirely on the private sector to achieve this goal by then.

Rule 2. That the government will cease to provide the additional savings facilities that an economy that is growing in financial terms will need if financial security and stability are to be provided to the UK's financial institutions that underpin the operation of the UK's financial services sector and its overseas trade. Financial risk will, therefore, be increased as a result, with a resulting increase in the likelihood of financial instability.

Rule 3. That the government will maintain a policy of austerity that reduces the likelihood that those with the greatest needs in the UK will have those needs met.

I have little doubt that the government will not agree with my interpretation of these rules. However, read what they say, and understand what they are meant to achieve, and my version of their statements expresses the reality of their supposed priorities, to which John Healey recommitted this Labour government yesterday.

No doubt Andy Burnham will do so again today.

The history of these fiscal rules, introduced as they were by Gordon Brown in 1997, makes clear why this is the case, and what the real priority of government since then has been.

Brown was, entirely inappropriately, terrified of the City of London. He and Blair won a massive majority from the people of this country, as Starmer did again in 2024. In both cases, the victory represented rejection of Tory sleaze as much as it did enthusiasm for any Labour programme, and Blair, Brown and Starmer alike reflected that fact in their behaviour. Not one of them had any confidence in the mandate they had been given. None of them believed that a parliamentary majority provided them with the authority to challenge the status and power of the City of London. All of them, and now Andy Burnham, signed up to the belief that the purpose of government was to meet the needs of the financial services sector, and not the people of this country. Every single fiscal rule created since then has had this sole purpose. The aim has been to:

Confirm that the government will bow to the interests of the City.

Reiterate that, whatever the wishes and needs of the people of the UK, their priorities and political mandates, the City and those who speak for it will instead dictate the agenda of the government.

State that if there is a conflict between the interests of the City and the interests of those who might elect governments in the UK, then the City shall have priority, whatever the cost to human well-being.

Make clear that sovereignty has been surrendered by the democratic will of Parliament on the altar of high finance.

That is what John Healey confirmed yesterday. He did, to use the language I created in my 2011 book, The Courageous State, confirm himself to be a cowardly politician who will, when he sees a problem requiring attention, defer to the interests of the City and declare that markets will provide a solution, washing his hands of responsibility in the process.

I am so bored of this type of government. I have lived with it for decades. It has failed me. It has failed the people of this country. It has been designed to do so. There is no intention amongst those who now sit in our Cabinet to change this in any way. And yet, the possibility to do so does exist.

There is no need for this country to have a fiscal rule of the type noted.

There is nothing to stop it having a rule for government that states that everyone who wants to have a job should be able to have one, and that it is the job of the government to ensure that this is possible.

There is nothing that says we cannot run government so that every young person in the UK gets the type of education that they need, rather than that which is deemed necessary for them to partake in in a neoliberal economy which is intent upon minimising employment, and then offering the maximum number of bullshit jobs, as David Graeber would have put it, to those left desperate enough to take them.

There is nothing that says this government could not commit itself to eradicating poverty with all its devastating social consequences.

There is nothing that says that this government cannot commit to the defence that is necessary against climate change, and the lack of resilience that we have with regard to critical supplies of goods and services that are essential for the maintenance of life in this country, and against the abuse of so many people by neoliberal and far-right politics that treats them as expendable or alien, and so available to be abused.

There is nothing that says we cannot manage the economy to achieve these goals, and do so in a way that is designed to manage inflation, because we know that is technically possible. What is more, we know that it is possible without the use of penal interest rates.

There is nothing that says we cannot build a sustainable future for our children, grandchildren and those who will come beyond them.

There is nothing that says any of these things is impossible, and simultaneously.

They are not, however,  happening, and that is by political choice. Because John Healey and Andy Burnham are deliberately choosing not to do these things, and because they do not even possess the curiosity to wonder whether alternatives to those that the Treasury imposes upon them might be available, they are, like all their predecessors since 1979, guilty of the deliberate destruction of well-being in this country by making it their priority to achieve this outcome.

If anyone asks me why I cannot support a Labour government in this country, that is why.

All that baffles me is that anyone would still support this Labour Party, or why any trade union would wish to financially donate to it, or why anyone would imagine it will deliver anything of consequence for people in this country. It is time for people of courage to walk away from Labour. They have had their chance. They have blown it. We need a real alternative in this country now. They will never be it again.

[Richard Adam @viewfinderimage]

@andyburnham Pandering to fossil fuel billionaires, pandering to Netanyahu and pandering to Trump.
If you're not careful you will become known as Andy Pandy.
The next general election can't come soon enough.
Tik Tok Andy.

[Richard Adam @viewfinderimage]

@joecguinan Plus the fact that he looks like Ronnie Corbett's Spitting Image puppet.

[Richard Adam @viewfinderimage]

@PeterTatchell @CompassOffice He's just another Blairite on the vine

[Yanis Varoufakis @yanisvaroufakis]

What a terrible start to his bid to reverse Starmer’s descent into one moral void after another! Adopting Mahmood’s ‘racism-lite’ agenda after embracing Reeves’ laughable fiscal rules does not augur well for Andy. Go Greens! https://t.co/CcsFhk2F7V

[Richard Adam @viewfinderimage]

@AndyBurnhamGM Labour Together, run by Josh Simons, in their race to oust their original runner Starmer, have handed you the baton.
In what way will you do things differently from Josh Simons for the people of Makerfield?

[Richard Adam @viewfinderimage]

@KimJohnsonMP They're all in it Together

[Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur oPt @FranceskAlbs]

In the face of UN's inability and Italy's unwillingness to protect me from the impact of US sanctions in Europe, I am glad #Courage is acting to defend me, ICC judges/prosecutors and Palestinian HR organisations.
PLEASE SIGN the PETITION and share.

[Mark Ruffalo @MarkRuffalo]

We need a mass world coalition to stop Israel’s genocidal march throughout the Middle East and the lawless terrorism and apartheid within its own borders. Boycott, Divest, and Sanction is the recipe to stop further violence. It’s Dr Martin Luther King’s strategy of peaceful change. We must deploy it en mass and create a coalition of those who we may not agree with politically on other fronts but find common ground on this rolling justice. It has awoken the moral center in most people.

[Andrew Feinstein @andrewfeinstein]

Investigating, surveilling MPs, journalists & political opponents: Labour Together, the vehicle that brought Starmer to power, is eroding British democracy. An urgent independent inquiry or police investigation is needed

[Richard Adam @viewfinderimage]

@UKLabour Your campaign seems to be Petering out already.

[Richard Adam @viewfinderimage]

@emmadentcoad Labour are a toxic brand now.

Also The Rodney's won't allow it.

[Richard Adam @viewfinderimage]

@NJ_Timothy @LordWalney More Bootsie and Snudge than Butch and Sundance.

[Richard Adam @viewfinderimage]

@AaronBastani That'll be Paul Masson. His Alter Ego. Which is also a wine but somewhat more upmarket.

[Richard Adam @viewfinderimage]

@Keir_Starmer Trump made you look like an irrelevant plonker on the world stage before Rodney and he's done it again.

[Richard Adam @viewfinderimage]

@DerbyChrisW @JohnHealey_MP He probably thinks Starship Troopers is a documentary.

[Zack Polanski @ZackPolanski]

Ever since I finished Question Time, Reform have massively been on the attack.

Including a rant from Richard Tice entirely designed to distract from Reform and Russia.

Everyone should know about Nathan Gill, the bribes from Russia and the link to Reform.

[Richard Adam @viewfinderimage]

@paulmasonnews Starmer and Farage are two sides of the same coin.

[Richard Adam @viewfinderimage]

@paulmasonnews As posters go up in the Westminster Village when one of their idiots goes missing, Starmer calls the search off as his useful idiot checks in on social media.

[Greens Organise @GreensOrganise]

“Billionaires don’t get their £ from their work. They get their £ from their assets….their assets are HERE.”

Don’t believe the hype.
The rich can threaten to leave all they want, but what they own will still be here.

Tax the rich, whether they like it or not.
@garyseconomics