LyrArc Article Gist
WSJ Editorial Board on Andy Burnham "wish him well,"  yet  this editorial says "he has wrong instincts." Calls Burnham as being "cipher on immigration," "want government to take lead on housing construction" and "wants greater state control of utilities," are unfounded criticism as shown below- "Cipher on immigration" - Burnham has supported Shabana Mahmood, as Home Secretary, on new action for strict immigration rules, tight control over migration, similar to Denmark.  He "wants greater control over utilities."  WSJ says nothing about how utilities were privatized under the Conservatives for basic services that are necessities for a basic quality of life- water, energy and transportation. It is widely accepted across Britain that the private entities have dismally failed the British people in ways not thought possible. Handing basic services to for profit companies was a fundamental error in Britain as it deteriorated the quality of life of the British people. As Burnham pointed out yesterday in speech to Labour and the British people if one cannot get something as basic as a bus service right how on earth can one fix the larger problems facing Britain? He "wants government to take the lead on housing construction."  When there are shortage of housing affecting the standard of living and quality of life as in the US and Britain the government can make a difference, and its stepping in and doing things correctly can improve the quality of life of the British people. He has the wrong instincts on economy suffocating net zero policies. It is reported in The Guardian that Burnham will support drilling for oil to help bring down cost of energy. The focus now is not net zero goals but making life better, improving the quality of life, achieving some balance which now is leaning towards cost of living affecting the people. He has the wrong instincts for business. In modern economies business is part of and the main driver of the economy. In Burnham's work in Manchester business was part of his plan for the economy, and successfully implemented. For far too long in Britain there has not been an honest reckoning on how policies that were reckless with the quality of basic services that affect the quality of life of the British people, would let Britain down, would fail to deliver for the people of Britain. The country that led the Industrial Revolution deserves something better and should get it in this one bold effort by Burnham. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
If Labour had defended the working class and if Conservatives had acted responsibly in the public interest Britain would have been much better off. Britain's economy and standard of living has suffered from the long drawn out austerity years under the Tories followed by the Brexit issue raised by the Tories. Behind Brexit were Nigel Farage of the Reform party and Boris Johnson of the Tories. Nigel Farage was brought out of retirement by the lack of effective leadership of Labour under Starmer even after winning a majority in parliament for Labour. Andy Burnham is trying to put Britain's house in order coming in as the man from the North, Mayor of the Manchester region. He has served in positions including at Treasury under Blair and Brown. Compared to every prome minister of the last three decades he brings both the experience and the knowledge of how to implement efforts to improve public services from experiments done in the Manchester region that he can use for the whole of Britain in transportation, infrastructure, delivery of water, electricity, and other essential services in a better way than the privatized companies of the Tories. He pushed back against Reform's revival in the Makerfield by-election. And it is crucial for Britain's economic future that it not waste more years like it did under Cameron and Johnson with a extension under Reform that only delays Britain's economic recovery. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
UK Reform Party has taken large donations from cryptocurrency companies. Reform leader Nigel Farage has received a 5 million pound gift from a cryptocurrency firm. What does this mean for cryptocurrency regulation in the UK as a world financial center, if Reform wins a general election and appoints the next Governor of the Bank of England when Andrew Bailey retires in 2028. This is discussed in The Guardian. The banking system of the US, UK and large countries was set up over many years and currency is only issued by a central bank with the financial backing of the nation. Cryptocurrency cannot on the basis of technology take that role without posing risks and destabilizing the financial system. The gradual splitting of society by the information economy, neglect of infrastructure, pharmaceutical pricing, banking speculation as in 2009 crisis, have been eroding some of the basic structures of democracy for the last two decades from within.  The wars in the Middle East policies, and the open borders migration policies, were effects from outside. What this has led to is counter to what one would expect. To fight open borders and the marginalization of some parts of the working class DJT Republicans have used whatever resources were available at the time in the 2024 presidential election. The cryptocurrency firms used this in opportunistic fashion to affect regulation of this currency by supporting the reelection bid of DJT in 2024 by making large donations. This has led to less regulation of cryptocurrency firms. Is this in the best interests of the Nation? Will this destabilize the banking system in ways that have happened before in the deregulation of banks before the 2009 financial crisis? In Britain a new Bank of England governor will be appointed after Andrew Bailey's term expires in 2028. Reform party in UK if elected as government would appoint the next Governor of the Bank of England. Reform's growing popularity is a result of Conservatives and Labour failing to take action on open borders, asylum hotels, and migration policy, following an ECHR code of rights that is inappropriate to such migration. What this means is that unexpected things happen as a result. Cyrptocurrency risks of destabilizing the banking system increase as a result of failure of parties on migration. This could be more destabilizing for Britain because of its role as a financial centre than the industrialized  economies such as Germany, China, and industrializing economies such as India. It poses risks in the US yet Federal Reserve Governor Walsh can exercise his own judgement about cryptocurrency and Congress can exercise oversight, the large banks can act to show the risks of destabilizing that cryptocurrency can pose. For Britain it is particularly dangerous as the US is also an industrialized power compared to Britain's focus on finance alone. Andrew Bailey can ignore lobbying by Reform Party in 2026 (Farage met with the Governor of the Bank of England), yet what happens if Reform appoints the next Governor in 2028? These are questions Britain needs to ponder. It is also why Andy Burnham is Britain's last chance to get things right on migration to the point that the British people feel good and proud of their heritage and history, British neighborhoods across the country feel safe and secure, and Britain shifts to reindustrialize its economy with partners in China and India, the European Union, and the US. A former Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, Sir Charlie Bean told the BBC about donations of Christopher Harbonne, who has a 13% ownership interest in cryptocurrency firm,Tether. "Stablecoins are only stable if they have the appropriate regulatory environment… But there is right now an unsurprising regulatory race to the bottom amid the potential for greater profits." He added: "When funds are coming from major shareholders of such large financial institutions, there is a clear potential conflict of interest here, for example, in the appointment of a new Bank of England governor. Transparency is one solution." ...

LyrArc Article Gist
BBC's look at Andy Burnham, whom it calls "King of the North" having won 60% of the vote as Mayor of Greater Manchester for three successive terms. A brief look at Andy Burnham's life. His father was a BT enginee and his mother a GP receptionist both strong Labour party supporters. He studied for a Masters degree in English at Cambridge. BBC says he was inspired to join Labour at age 14 years after seeing a documentary "Boys from the Blackstuff,"' about life in the city of Liverpool for the disadvantaged. He is a soccer player and Everton soccer team fan, who played for Lancashire schoolboys cricket team. He starts out as ajournalist working for trade magazines, then as researcher for the MP for Duwich, later joining the Blair movement that returned Labour to power. Under Blair he was junior minister, then MP for Leigh in the Manchester area. He moved to Cabinet Minister under Gordon Brown as chief secretary to the Treasury and Health Secretary. With Conservatives in power he was Shadow Home Secretary under Jeremy Corbyn in the Opposition. He ran against Jeremy Corbyn and Ed Milliband for the leadership of the Labour Party before being elected as Mayor of Greater Manchester three times with 60% of the vote. As Mayor he put the bus and transport system back under government control and built the Bee Network, which is one of his success stories in Manchester. He is seen as the only Labour leader who enjoys confidence of the British public from the way he ran the large local government of Manchester. With UK Reform winning local elections he is seen as the leader who can bring confidence back to Labour, and to Britain as it navigates the post Brexit environment and strives for renewal of Britain, its economy and role in Europe. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
German economic growth drops in 2026 to below 1%. What is happening?Germany manufacturing jobs drop to 6.6 million lowest in 10 years in 2026 as China makes same products for less and better. China is shipping more of its products to the German market and displacing German products in world markets. The same problems affecting the US in loss of manufacturing jobs is affecting Germany. This is happening as China uses long range plans coordinated with industry and state owned companies to deliver superior results in world markets to American and German companies competing on their own without coordination with the government in a long range plan and effort. The American and German companies face greater uncertainty in markets and are slow to invest in critical areas and technologies as a result leaving them exposed to Chinese competition. China has used the Japanese style subsidizing its industries and has another advantage in doing this in that many are state owned companies or heavily subsidized and supported by the state. After 1990 the fall of the Soviet system led to a sense that free markets in their purest form were better. This was not really true as the soviet system of state planning failed because it did not use the best features of the market economy that work. Japan adapted the market system to its needs and used state partnership with private industry to produce good results. The US did not learn from Japan's example. China learned from both the failure of soviet style planning and the success of the Japanese system to adapt its state plannning system by including aspects of the market economy. The US and Germany can only learn from these examples and adapt US market economy by including aspects of what worked for China and Japan of state plannning and long range plans of industry and government. Look back to how FDR won the war- within 5 years 1940-1945 he combined the best aspects of the planning and coordination of government and industry to achieve goals not thought possible. Britain did the same which shows such planning and coordination is not only a part of the US system of business and industry, it is just that these lessons and the lessons of other nations like Japan and China after 1950 were forgotten. India is now adapting its system for business and industry, and government for five year plans borrowing and learning from the examples of the US, Japan, China and the EU. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
First month of 2026 shows upturn for Britain's economy and $31 billion monthly budget surplus at Treasury. This is good news for Reeves and Keir Starmer as they face Manchester by election on Feb 24, 2026, first of local elections after the Mandelson episode. Unemployment is at 5.3% and inflation has fallen to 3% for the British economy in January 2026.

LyrArc Article Gist
A professor of economics of innovation and public value at University College, London, says one-off deals such as the one with Land Rover to produce electric car batteries is not an adequate response to the big industrial strategies of the US and the European Union. Mariana Mazzucato says in this Guardian article the UK's decision to leave the EU is costing 100 billion pounds in output. Of 100 leading Uk manufacturers about half say their suppliers in the EU are more cautious about doing business in the UK. She compares the US industrial strategy that combines public and private investment of $3.5 trillion over the next decade, and the EU's for $2 trillion with Britain's effort. She says of the UK that it has nothing like this and worse with austerity it is moving in the opposite direction. Another problem is the change in governments of the Tories and new industrial policy every time there is a new minister. Business investment in UK is 19% less than the G7 average. The civil service needs investment, as she says Britain has become addicted to outsourcing the core functions of the public sector. Mazzucato says the government for aid to the private sector should do what Germany and France have done to expect reduction in carbon emissions, or as the US has done with Biden's Chips Act of giving aid given that there are no share buybacks by companies.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
As Labour under Burnham heads to the Greater Manchester election with 2 million voters July 30 - Burnham wins Makerfield by election 55% to the 44% for Reform, Restore and Conservatives combined. It sets the stage for Labour's recovery from attacks by Reform with sensible policy on immigration, and focus on all the people left out in the British economy in the North of England under the Conservatives and neglected by Starmer and a Greater London focused economy. Britain's strength during the Industrial Revolution came from the shipyards of Scotland to the steel mills of Birmingham and the manufacturing industry in Manchester, as well as the financial strength gained from the Empire in India and concentrated in London.

LyrArc Article Gist
Khamanei as leader of post revolution Iran set up Iranian supported military organizations in neighboring countries such as in Lebanon (Hezbollah), in Iraq, and in Syria, in Yemen (Houthis), over two decades, but failed to make the gains that Asian nations in that period made by investing entirely every dollar in the homeland economy of Iran. By comparing with Asian nations such as South Korea/Japan/Taiwan/China and now India/Vietnam the entire region from Iran and Afghanistan, Pakistan, Persian Gulf, Egypt can be seen as having lost some vital decades of the early twenty first century, and the scale of the difference is nothing short of staggering.  China after suffering invasion from Britain and then Japan, after civil wars and the Korean War, after going through this for two centuries sought peaceful development in 1990-2025, working with Japan and Britain countries that caused so much suffering yet China sough rapprochement, patiently with humility, with incredible results.  Gandhi also sought rapprochement with Britain through the British Commonwealth and cherished institutions of parliament and science learned and gathered from Britain. This was woefully missing in West Asia. When considering the access to capital in fossil fuel sales, the region of West Asia around Egypt may be seen as having recorded the largest wasted capital in wars in world history in the period 1920 -2047 (with only 20 years left to 2047),  by which time India, China, Europe and the US will have shifted from fossil to solar nuclear and renewables and fossil will be no longer generating revenue flows. Very little time is left as development will be that much harder by 2047 without the capital and result being one of being left behind in this new world that is facing us all.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
After the turnover of administrations and prime ministers in the last decade, a new wave is taking place. By 2010 with prime minister David Cameron mediocre leaders are running Britain, and after Boris Johnson, Truss, Sunak and Brexit politics, a new wave of Labor party unraveling is taking place following the Conservatives unraveling and falling apart. This is reflected in the Mandelson affair and the lack of firm direction on immigration policy with boatloads of migrants entering the country and filling up hotels in rural areas of the country. The ECHR (European Commisssion of Human Rights) written for different situations by Europeans who had little grasp or respect for the British public's attachment to their own history, culture and traditions, were being applied by British Labor leaders such as Keir Starmer to migrants who had no connections to Britain. Migrant crime and protests about migrants has weakened a Labor government, weakening the British state and its economy. Within hardly 1 year after winning  elections for a majority government British prime minister Keir Starmer faces the prospect of stepping down. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The concerns that China was going to overtake the US and become the largest economy is a misconception of how countries have developed through industry and technology. Britain and the other countries of Europe, Germany and France, went through rapid development in the 1930's and 1960's then at some point after saturation were relatively stagnant. China for the first time in 250 years of the Industrial revolution began to develop rapidly and urbanize in the 1990's. China is at that same point of saturation and it's economy moving to relative stagnation with 4% annual growth in 2026-2030 and 2-3% annual growth beyond to 2047. India is taking place of China as parts of India (large states of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Maharashtra with population 500 million) can achieve 15-22% annual growth in 2026-2030. A quick idea of this can be seen here in the WSJ. China as a percentage of the global economy was 18.5% in 2021 and has since declined to 16.5% of the global economy in 2025. China was three fourth of the US economy when it peaked in 2021 and has since declined in 2025 to two thirds of the size of the US economy. As a percentage of the global economy China will go down to 12% over the next 5 years as India advances, and the population of US, Canada, Australia with their continental spaces continues to grow and with it GDP growth. This is validated from the Japanese experience of peaking at becoming 18% of the world economy by 1996 and then dropping by 2006 to about 11%, 2016 to 6% and 2025 to 4%. The combined effect is to reduce the size of China's economy as a percentage of the overall global economy at a point of time in the future 2030, 2040, 2050. Japan is a good example. There are other factors in play including technology and capital access as technology and capital shifts to other parts of the world where it can be better deployed and conditions are suited for rapid development as in India/Indonesia and in the US/Canada/Australia regions of 1.6 billion people and 450 million people from China (saturation overbuilding), the Middle East (wars and mismanagement). ...

LyrArc Article Gist
By June 7 US stocks were up 11.5% in the first half of 2026, showing a resilient stock market whatever economists say about tariffs and other policies. There is a lot of misinformation on the changes in trade policy. Sure the deficits over $1 trillion had become so excessive to be a burden for the US ( this is not even to address the 20:5:2  the 20 trillion transfer in US wealth to foreign countries, 5 million jobs lost and the 2% low growth since 2000 that USTR Lighthizer and Jamieson point out in Foreign Affairs magazine in 2026).  Greg Ip comments on this in today's WSJ that betting against DJT trade and economic policy is not working. Here we have another flashback to Brexit and why a similar situation of misinformation had the opposite result. The value of the pound dropped from $1.55 to $1.35 to the US dollar in June 2016 the day Brexit referendum was won by Reform UK and the Conservatives. Today it is $1.33 in June 2026. Here is some history of Britain's tussle with the European Union. When did it start? In 1961 Britain applied to join. The French never too eager to have the British inside rejected in 1967 under nationalist De Gaulle. It took 12 years  not till 1973 did Britain get in with Denmark and both kept their currencies. As soon as Britishers complained about the bureaucracy in European Union Brussels headquarters conservatives like Boris Johnson drove this to a high pitch. He even said only way it would affect Britain was in the price of a Mars chocolate bar. Well in 2026 it is much more than that. Labour's Wes Streeting calls it a disastrous step for the UK economy to isolate it from Europe.  As usual the French don't care and the Germans showed little interest, so Britain was left to its own devices not being careful would mean bearing the costs. Manchester's mayor Burnham in Labour says he grasps this but there are other priorities that are pressing and shelves this for another time. It took 12 years to get UK into the European Union- it took just a few years under shortsighted Cameron, May and Johnson to get out when after austerity policies imposed by Cameron a lot of anger had shifted to Labourites and Blair's policies like the shortsighted policies of Bush and Obama, for the 20 trillion US lost to foreigners in their watch. Will it take another 12 years again for UK to get it right and get France and Germany to enthusiastically support Britain in the EU? ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Reeves wants to remain UK Chancellor (Finance Minister) and is campaigning for the job. Yet there are questions whether she is the right person. Kiran Stacey of The Guardian asks does Andy Burnham need a clean break from the Starmer administration considering the missteps on disability benefits, cutting winter fuel payments, and other actions of Rachel Reeves. These missteps were not necessary and clearly eroded support for what Labour should be standing up for and doing. The idea that she has something that keeps the bond markets happy is a complete myth- in which case the Tories could do just as well or better. Labour was elected not to be like the Tories but to enact its own program. Clement Atlee was elected in 1945 even after the popularity in the war of Winston Churchill. He could not have done what he did without the clear confidence in himself that Starmer clearly lacks, with the added problem of Reeves instincts in the wrong place for a Labour government elected to enact its own program. If Labour cannot believe in its own programs fro the working class how are working class people in Britain supposed to believe in Labour? That is the problem of the Starmer-Reeves running of the British economy and addressing problems of cost of living, the shrinking of opportunity in Britain, mismanagement left by the Tories.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Most of the Address followed a familiar pathabout the economy, about the reasons for the Iran war being the nuclear threat most of all, and the way the president has sought to tackle the threat of ballistic missiles that could soon reach US and Europe. It was an update one month into the war with Iran. One part of it showed a focus on keeping the war short compared to other conflicts and limiting US losses by being very careful on that point. DJT cited the wars of the past 1 year 7 months for WW1, 3 years and 8 months for WWII, Korean War 3 years and 1 month, that soon stretched on for decades in the conflicts that followed. Vietnam 18 years, Iraq 8 years- wars that dragged on and led to US losing its economic position as the strongest nation economically. This one with limited goals nuclear threat removal and ballistic missile removal as the key goals on for 32 days, and right from the start clearly setting what US would not do and do- not take on role of opening Straits of Hormuz and asking China, Britain, countries that get the oil from Hormuz to take this on as China and Japan get 90% of their oil imports from Hormuz Straits. US is self sufficient and does not need that oil from Hormuz. It was the message to the MAGA base that does not want this war to become like the ones carried on for 8 years by Bush and Obama in Iraq which they clearly reject- the bigger goal is the US economy and reindustrialization not the deindustrialization that happened under  Bush and Obama destroying the US industrial base while fighting wars in remote places.  It was also meant to counter the idea of a president not conscious of responsibilities for limiting the duration of the conflict by removing goals such as opening Hormuz Straits which would involve the US in something it does not need and is the job of other nations who need that oil like China, Japan, Britain and India. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Starmer's visit to China and the result being halving of tariffs- it comes 8 years after Theresa May's visit 2018.  Starmer is following his intution  to set an independent course for Brtian's foreign policy. It makes sense as the US is using common sense in coming back to basics, to getting its own hemisphere policies right. How could there be a situation like that in Venezuela and Mexico as with the drug cartels operating as states within states- what would Teddy Roosevelt say about this? So we now have the Monroe Doctrine, the return of the Panama Canal, the restructuring of the oil industry in Venezuela, and other action. This also means Canada and UK, India, European Union can pursue policies that are common sense. It means for Britain a new openness with China after 8 years inward looking with Austerity, Brexit and Covid. For a smaller economy it makes sense for Britain to have agreements on trade as it signed with India, and now with China. Carney, Starmer and soon Merz will have worked out relations with China on trade and exchanges. For Europe and the US over concentration of making goods in China can be corrected while still engaging with China. For the EU the visits Germany's Merz made to the kite festival an India and Leyen/Costa of the EU following up with trade agreements are all part of common sense to not just reduce over concentration in China, but also to build a new partnership with India to form a 2 billion people market. All of which happened suddenly as European nations realized how to work out new arrangements following the war with Russia over Ukraine and China's support for Russia, taking up the cues from DJT common sense action in its backyard. "I'm a pragmatist, a British pragmatist, applying common sense," the prime minister tells BBC on the plane and says he wants to "make Britain face outwards again."  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
US Naval Blockade Day 10- US stock markets up 4.1% for 4 months, oil price $95 a barrel, prices at pump $4.02 down from $3.94 a month back. If all the US seeks out of an agreement is getting nuclear material out of Iran to keep nuclear weapons out of the Middle East based on 5 decades of war in the Middle East- Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, and now Iraq/ Lebanon- this is to protect the people of the world from nuclear weapons, including China, India, Brazil, Russia, EU and other nations. This was the goal of Democratic administrations also, only the Republican approach is to err on the side of safe and take zero chances on future nuclear escalation while the Democratic administrations were based on trust, trust which is not a sure thing in the Middle East political and cultural environment. Some of DJT comments were bluster, but the basic position is the same- against nuclear proliferation for a safer planet. In this light the Naval Blockade only seeks not to block Iran's path to a prosperous economy and a bright future for its people. Iran's economy is affected in the same way that India's and China's, Africa's is affected, for upwards of 4 billion people compared to 100 million for Iran. Africa, Pakistan and Bangladesh, Indonesia, among the poorest in the world, poorer by far than Iran. The economic impact on this part of the world is not part of Iranian perceptions. The economic impact on Gulf kingdoms an adversary of Iran is by comparison only a small fraction of the impact on the poorest countries. In this situation US is working to support the poorest segments of the Chinese people ( the part of China in the hinterland that is the one third not urbanized) and the Indian people through its cooperation and direct or indirect support. In this perspective the US economy stands as a steadfast support for US policy of fairness and respect for all nations since 1900- US is not one of the colonial powers such as Britain and France who created some of the artificial states Syria, Iraq, out of the remains of the collapsed Ottoman Empire in the interest of their Empires by 1921, and setup regimes in Iran for its oil, that are the source of today's problems and wars. No Empire of Britain and France promised Iran $28 billion as this Nation does today if Iran ships nuclear material out of Iran for a 100 percent shift to a peaceful Middle East that works for the modernization and industrial development of its economies in the interests of the people. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
James McIntyre's book about Gordon Brown, (title is Power with a Purpose) who like Jimmy Carter, was more respected in retirement for doing good work humbly and not getting into a revenue generating speaker's circuit or consulting, or boards of directors of companies. McIntyre looks at his career, the involvement of Mandelson as Business Secretary, the failures of Mandelson and Blair in New Labour, and Gordon Brown's failure to revive the Labour Party. The Times says Gordon Brown has grown in stature since leaving No. 10 Downing Street. Under Blair, Brown was No.2 and headed the British Treasury as finance minister. He only became prime minister at the end of his career during the 2008-2009 financial crisis. He started the effort to redefine Labour Party after Margaret Thatcher defeated the Labour candidate from Plymouth Mr. Foot and swept out socialist Labour and the trade unions. Then followed privatization and changes in the British economy which were followed by Reagan in the US by 1980. Through this period Brown and Blair tried to create the concept of New Labour which won in landslides as Britain switched back to Labour as the alternative. As the Blair magic withered Brown was left tackling the 2009 financial crisis but failed to define what Labour was- his Business secretary was Peter Mandelson who unlike Brown was in Labour but in for his own purpose and had a cynical attitude to politics as a way to retire in some privileged business position on boards of directors. The result is well known Cameron and the conservatives who were even less qualified than an earlier generation of Conservative politicians, their decision to call the Brexit referendum, the verdict of yes on Brexit leading to Cameron's replacement by Boris Johnson, and Britain having 4 prime ministers in a span of five years as discredited austerity drive was replaced by Keir Starmer's Labour. This project with McSweeney as Starmer's campaign manager cleared Labour of socialist outlook Corbyn supporters, won in a landslide in 2024, only to fail to define the purpose for which Labour stood for and Starmer's ratings dropping to new lows of 18% support as Reform UK's Farage took up the issue of migrants and the culture that enabled migrants to enter the UK. Britain has been let down by two generations of less competent, poorly qualified for public service politicians over three decades since the 1990's- through Blair/Brown, Cameron, Boris Johnson and left struggling with Keir Starmer. Sixty years after decolonization of an Empire in the 1960's, Britain has not gained in purpose and strength, only drifting along as new powers emerge in Asia and the world changes. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This editorial in The Economist magazine points out that the doggedness of prime minister Theresa May now looks like pig-headedness. The crisis is of poor leadership. It also exposes two deeper problems in the Leave campaigns distorted message that it is possible for Britain to leave the EU, "to take back control" without making it harder to for British business and the economy to trade with its partners in Europe. It also exposes concerns of democracy that see the referendum as the only message from the people- the general election of 2017 brought Conservatives to power without a majority in parliament changing the picture about the referendum's message. Particularly since the referendum Leave campaign presented a distorted  message leaving out what the cost would be for Britain.  Ejection from the single market, decline of industy from finance to carmaking, destablisation of Northen Ireland peace agreement, exit bill of 50 bill euros was not advertised in the Leave campaign. Buses with posters of immigrants streaming across borders in Europe presented an emotional message recklessly sold to voters. Representing the will of the people can be claimed now by all sides, says the Economist. Leaving Europe on March 29 deadline with no deal would be bad for Europe and economic upheaval for Britain. Discerning the will of the people should not be the work of squabbling MP's or backbenchers in parliament. The only practical and sensible way out of this mother of all messes is to go back to the people and get a new opinion with broad daylight thrown on the realities facing Britain.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A warning from Britain about tax cuts and not investing in the US economy that could put the US in the same bad shape as Britain under the Tories with Trump/Vance tax cuts and high tariffs stifling the economy. Krugman, with his long experience in studying economic policy of governments,  says the unforced error for Britain was not even Brexit as much as it was the austerity policies put forward by Cameron and his finance minister Osborne in 2010. What it did was to push austerity policies when the right move would have been to invest in the economy and in public services. In 2010 he says the Greece crisis and eurozone debt crisis led to Britain adopting austerity when it was in a different situation. Britain's debt was in its own currency and at home. The British economy was just recovering from the 2009 banking crisis which meant that economic capacity was underutilized and more people needed to be employed. In this situation Britain instead of Cameron/Osborne austerity that starved public services and investment in infrastructure, jobs, needed to invest in public services. A decade and half later this has put Britain in a bad place with a weak economy and dilapidated public services. Britain lacks the courage and right policy of the Biden administration in investing in the economy with support from Congress, so that even Labour is not in a position to soon reverse the effects of this austerity policy. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
BBC's Mark Tullly reflects on the period of coverage from 1962-1994 of South Asia. He says of Indira Gandhi that she took the democratic process out of the Indian National Congress party, and set up her sons as future leaders that was undemocratic. Here he reflects on that period in an intervew with the BBC after he left the BBC.  He has deep connections to the Indian period after 1800 as his great grand father on his mothers side was around 1840 in a part of Uttar Pradesh where British planters had farmers plant opium that would later be bought by planters for export. This coincides with the period when Britain in Hong Kong traded in opium as part of British trading in the emerging colonial culture British Empire. There is mixed legacy for Britain in India and China. The history of the Opium Wars in the 1850's and opening up of colonial ports ended with the 1900's revolution and the emergence of the CCP in China by 1950. In India the legacy was mixed bringing together this part of Asia into a new nation and bringing parliamentary traditions of Britain that provided the basis for good governance.  Tully is a softspoken thoughtful Englishman who revolted against British classical education in his youth and studied history and religion at Cambridge, made friends with the future bishops of Canterbury and Lincoln at Cambridge. He is not the Englishman of the Empire as his fondest memories are of the servants verandahs on the bungalows of Britishers and the smoke from their quarters, and the language. So it is a thoughtful view that he gives of the undemocratic nature of Indira Gandhi and mismanagement of the economy that could have changed if India had gone in a different direction under other leaders in the the 1990's. Why is this significant? China's modernization drive started in the 1990's. India's by the undemocratic nature and mismanagement under Indira Gandhi did not start its modernization till 2010, about 20 years after China, opening up a huge gap that is only now being corrected leading to problems for world security, US security, European security and Indian security. And delaying the aspirations of development of 1.4 billion people for 2 decades. Vikshit Bharat cannot come fast enough for both Merz in Germany and Leyen at the European Union, who last week and this week visit Ahmedabad and India for the Kite festival and for Republic Day 2026. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Stephen Castle of the NYT gives an objective look at Andy Burnham of the Greater Manchester area and Labour party leader. Burnham has said that Britain has been on the wrong path for 40 years and had the courage to prove this by leaving London for his home region of Greater Manchester in the North of England, after serving as chief secretary of The Treasury and Labour minister under Gordon Brown around the time of the financial crisis of 2009. After winning in Greater Manchester he served as Mayor of this important region of Britain second only to London in importance, which after the fall of the British Empire, has led to politics focusing entirely on London. His term as Mayor involved getting transportation out of the hands of the private companies and having the government run it efficiently for the people of Manchester. His term is viewed favorably for improving the economy of the region. Compared to the people Britain has turned out previously- Thatcher, Blair,  Brown, Cameron, Starmer, he has genuine experience running a region and tackling tough problems, which none of the other leaders had, that comes from his hard work for the people of Greater Manchester as head of the local government. He has the skills to bring people together around his vision for the Labour party, similar to that brought by Clement Attlee. At Lyrarc we looked at what  Britannica Encylopedia has to say about Attlee and found that Attlee spent his first 15 years in the difficult working class district of East London, similar to what Burnham has done by moving back to his home region in the north and quietly working to understand the people, their aspirations and how to make them come true. Attlee did this in 1945-51 (setting up the National Health Service NHS and Bank of England, other revered institutions) the way Franklin Roosevelt did in the 1930's to establish the modernization of New York government that he later applied to 51 states as president. This is the kind of task similar to Attlee and FDR that Burnham has the potential to accomplish for Britain. Like Attlee Burnham is self effacing with little sense of wanting public recognition, comfortable with who he is and where he is from. Like Attlee staying away from Ramsay MacDonald's Labour government in 1931, when it failed to find a clear path ahead for Britain, (Burnham concentrated on Manchester away from London), and decided to forge his own way forward with new ideas and being creative- as it was under Attlee that the British Empire was converted into the British Commonwealth of Nations. An enormous feat that has not been fully grasped and will one day be seen as an amazing achievement of the 20th century- India independent and  creating a modernized state the size of the US, European Union or China by 2040/2047. This is our assessment at Lyrarc of the potential Burnham could have for Britain- and possibly for the world again like Clement Attlee in 1945-1951. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Rachel Reeves is Shadow Chancellor in Britain, that is a way of saying Finance Minister when Labor currently in the Opposition forms a new government. Speaking at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington DC she says how Labour will bring about a transformation of Britain's economy with ambitions that borrows from and matches what Biden is doing in the US, and Scholz in Germany. This is very different from anything Britain has seen in its history. The Labour government of Clement Attlee made some institutional changes such as setting up the Bank of England as Britain's central bank in 1946, creating the structures that would help workers and families and the British economy recover from the war, and declaring in parliament that Britain would leave India by June 1948. Blair's response to the Thatcher government did not rival the changes brought by Attlee by any comparison. What Britain following the US is facing today is an FDR or Attlee moment because of the scale of changes needed to create an American or British economy that matches the aspirations of the people, and creating a meaningful role in the world economy and supply chains. Investments have to be made in public goods such as renewable energy, health, education and transportation infrastructure that have no parallel in history including that of FDR or Attlee. Biden is investing on a scale that is designed to overcome two decades of neglect of infrastructure and public goods such as education, health care, and public services. The same is true for Britain. The same is true for Germany and for the European Union.   ...