Impressions on Andy Burnham
I attended a speech given by Andy Burnham yesterday morning at the Microsoft Building in the Thames Valley Business Park - given the setting the speech was on economic planning and business - with the odd question on social welfare matters. I didn't get to ask a question as time was very rushed. Afterwards I decided to send Andy my question - unfortunately I don’t seem to be able to find a place to send it - so here it is my question and other comments. If any of you have any answers to my question they would be gratefully received.
It should be noted that I am a active member of the Labour Party and undecided regarding the current leadership contest.
I attended your speech earlier today at Microsoft. I didn't get to ask my question unfortunately but this was it:
‘Hi Andy, I’m Anne. I understand that you’re a working class lad and I’m a working class girl. At one point in my life I thought I would be able to say ‘working class made good’ but as you know social mobility is now non-existent so the ‘made good’ part never got said. The thing that being working class makes me good at is knowing about stigma, poverty, inequality and debt. I come from one of the poorest and most socially deprived areas of Britain - I remember hiding behind the sofa with my mum when the rent man came round.
In point one of your speech you noted how although there were some considerable economic successes in the last government you felt that the deficit that was run (even though it was the smallest for 20 years) was a mistake - and you know this because Alistair Darling asked you to reduce it. You mentioned that you would aim to run a surplus. For me a government running a surplus is ‘morally reprehensible’. A strong phrase but one I mean firmly. For me money and morals are always tightly intertwined. For a large corporation or a big business or the accounts of a country debt is not a fearful thing. Debt is there to be used in the same way as income - to create wealth. A large business would not feel satisfied in having its money locked up and warehoused. That money should always be working for the good of the company - creating wealth. This also holds true for a state. States have a responsibility to use their assets (including their credit worthiness) to accrue wealth for a nation, and today for it’s neighbours and the globe. This goes to point 5 of your speech. I do not understand why when you would have ‘money in the bank’ you would expect local authorities and the state to borrow money (from banks?) and pay interest on that (whilst the state accrues a surplus) to invest in infrastructure. That would be a net loss for the country. Private finance initiatives were a disaster. They are an iron chain around our necks and any further association with something similar (even watered down) would be disastrous. I think running a surplus and using borrowed money to invest in infrastructure is bad policy - can you tell me why I’m wrong?’
It seems to me that ‘having a surplus’ as per Mr Osborne is a new ‘thing’ - a symbol of ‘control’ over a system which can only be guided by checks and balances which exist nationally and internationally. When people cannot afford to feed themselves and the country has a surplus then a moral vacancy must exist at the heart of our political process.
The country is crying out for a leader - a person who can inhabit a moral, social, political and cultural framework that can show the people a new way. That can pull them out of dichotomous mindsets that set one group against another. It seems to me that currently the Labour Party is too busy responding to the conservative party, to media portrayals etc to be truly original. I am awaiting that moment where I can put my faith in a leader who is a change maker, a person who doesn’t play by the rules but decides what the game is. Hackneyed? Perhaps, but it is what is needed - without it we will spend three terms in the cold.
I currently claim carer’s allowance. I haven’t always done this and I won’t always do this but I consider myself a ‘wealth creator’ as much as anyone in work. I create a wealth of opportunities for my family, my neighbourhood, my community and certainly for my local authority and my nation. Anyone who claims any type of welfare benefit will also be doing the same. I’m fearful that you and your colleagues know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. We know (there’s research on this) that stigmatising poor people and using the language of objectification and scapegoating we saw in the last government does not encourage people to achieve it destroys them. Making poor people poorer will not increase the wealth of the nation.
I liked your suggestion regarding a clearing system for apprenticeships and technical and academic education being treated on a par. However, we both know that this has been the aim of governments for decades and has yet to be achieved. Your suggestions for Local Councils building housing from money which has been loaned is also exasperating given it was the Labour Party who insisted LA’s could not borrow which led to them selling housing off cheap to Housing Associations who were explicitly given the opportunity to borrow (don’t get me started on housing). However, as I say I would overlook all past errors if I felt there was a leader who was going to lead - take a stance on the stigmatising language, openly support unions etc, etc..
The thing which so attracted me to your campaign last time but I’ve only heard you mention once this time is that ‘You die in the bed you’re born in’. This is true now more than ever and you know and I know the austerity movement will not remedy this in any way.
With thanks for your time.
