Takes photographs. Writes.
Peak District & Manchester UK
Joined May 2009
- Tweets37K
- Following2.1K
- Followers2.1K
- Likes65K
Andrew Griffiths retweeted
Support for potential Labour-led coalitions in the event of a future hung parliament has risen since the start of the year
Lab, with LDs: 42% support (+11 since Dec 2025)
Lab, with Grn: 38% (+5)
Con, with LDs: 26% (+2)
Con, with Ref: 25% (=)
Lab, with Con: 25% (+9)
Ref, with Con: 24% (-5)
Con, with Lab: 22% (+4)
Ref, with Lab: 16% (-1)
Lab, with Ref: 10% (+3)
Andrew Griffiths retweeted
“You still claim that taxpayers finance the government, despite there being not a single paper that explains the details, whereas there are literally dozens of papers describing balance sheets and accounting mechanics published by MMT economists.”
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
"The real difference is methods. Heterodox economics is an avowedly political project not a social scientific effort to better understand the world. And I have nothing against political projects just shouldn't confuse the two."
In fact, it is quite the opposite. Heterodox economics is largely concerned with institutional economics. As such, institutions — like money — are described and analyzed. Unlike orthodox economics, there is no bias towards state-led solutions, but rather a market bias. Reality is explained as an 'equilibrium' brought about by individuals. The 'capital market', the 'labour market', the 'goods market' — the 'holy cross' of supply and demand — is invoked, although it is built on sand due to problems of aggregation (just google the Cambridge Capital Controversy). Hence, policy advice is neoliberal, focusing on finding the right 'incentives' for private investment (de-risking), pollution (trading certificates) and employment (pushing down wages). Fallacies of composition (not everyone can save, for example) are ignored. Any empirical reality that goes against a model's processes or data is ignored. New Keynesians, for example, create an abstract model based on assumptions that can be empirically tested. This did not stop them. They neither saw the financial crisis coming nor could they explain it. No time for worry. The fact that there is no 'Nobel', as mentioned by Jason Furman? Ignored. Free trade theory was "applied" in the 2000s, with the US losing almost one in three manufacturing jobs. Did that trigger a return to industrial policy in the orthodox academic journals? Nope. Have orthodox economists learned anything from MMT? It does not seem so. You still claim that taxpayers finance the government, despite there being not a single paper that explains the details, whereas there are literally dozens of papers describing balance sheets and accounting mechanics published by MMT economists. Have any orthodox economists learned that showing only public debt means omitting the private and external sectors, and that there is a bigger picture?
So, the orthodox paradigm is centred on a pro-market and anti-government core, which is highly ideological. People are assumed to be rational, and society is dismissed as an irrelevant concept. This paradigm cannot be touched. It is a political programme enabled by those who saw the fall of the Soviet Empire as meaning that the 'end of history' was near. Orthodox economists have enabled policies that have rolled back the state (thus diminishing democracy) and brought in finance. The policies it has supported over the last forty years — financialisation, privatisation, etc. — have created many problems, including climate change, inequality, mass unemployment and inflation. These problems cannot be solved by the same theories that created them. If there is any hope of solving the problems of the 21st century, it lies in rethinking them from a heterodox perspective.
Andrew Griffiths retweeted
I repeat, I'm not exclusively #MMT. But why do none of the professional economists on this thread apart from Itamar understand it even at a basic level? For instance, MMT does advocate tax increases in specific circumstances. It's basically a description of the operation of fiat currency systems, influenced by but not limited to older positions such as Chartalism, functional finance, endogenous money creation, sectoral balances and financial instability. It's certainly related to post-Keynesianism, which can help remedy some of its flaws such as trade balances, international currency valuation etc.
I'm just a lowly all-rounder - economic history, sociology, social psychology - who worked in criminology departments. If I can understand it and summarise it why can't professional economists? Spoiler - the basic reason is that they have to straw-man it to fit their ideologically bound off-the-peg criticisms. Empirically grounded and theoretically sophisticated reformulation of provisional knowledge just isn't their forte. Paradigm-changing ideas are out of the question - disallowed.
I block these people because there's no point in debating with them. You might as well argue with scientologists. I'm not trashing the intellectual capabilities of individuals I don't know outside their orthodox writings, but simply stating the incontrovertible truth that thus far the mainstream neoclassical position has been ideologically locked, that's all. Press any of them hard enough and you'll find its dual root is a deep fear of the state, socialism, collectivism, totalitarianism etc. and an equally deep belief in the individual's right to enter markets to aquire and bequeath unlimited assets. Professional/institutional advocates are not allowed to stray from these principles.
Andrew Griffiths retweeted
"I know from conversations within Reform that the leadership of the party are deliberately using the Senedd as a platform for sowing division, rather than seeking solutions."
There was a debate in the Senedd tonight arguing against face coverings in public.
I think that it’s important to debate with people you disagree with and I believe that debate is almost always preferable to no-platforming. I also think it isn’t unreasonable to discuss the impact of religion on society.
However, I know from conversations within Reform that the leadership of the party are deliberately using the Senedd as a platform for sowing division, rather than seeking solutions. It’s also worth bearing in mind that the Senedd would have no power to ban face coverings anyway.
I therefore am not going to cover the ins and outs of what was discussed. It wasn’t a debate, it was a demonstration of how far the Overton window has shifted towards the reprehensible. I have no interest in driving that shift.
I will therefore leave with you with part of the contributions from Plaid MS Sioned Williams and Labour MS Huw Thomas.
Andrew Griffiths retweeted
One of the reasons why we farm with (rather than against) nature, and why I know livestock kept outside all year (yes even sheep, yes even out on the moor, yes even in winter) is vital for wider ecosystem recovery…
#Dungbeetles are just so cool!
#dartmoor #speciesrecovery
ALT Two green brown chunky beetles on my hand
Andrew Griffiths retweeted
The day Labour approves Jackdaw is the day the UN announce 1.5 is lost
The chance to keep global warming below 1.5°C with no overshoot is gone.
But urgent action can still limit the overshoot and bring warming back to 1.5°C by 2100.
Current policies, however, put the 🌎 on course for up to 2.8°C this century.
New #EmissionsGap Report: unep.org/en/news-and-stories…
Rather well put!
The Govt saying we must drill more fossil fuels so we can use the tax revenues to fund the green transition is about as logical as a doctor telling you to smoke 2 packs a day to raise the money for your lung transplant
You don’t put out a fire by pouring on more fuel 🔥#Jackdaw
Andrew Griffiths retweeted
Myth Busting Labour's Energy Claims:
1/ Fahnbulleh, the energy secretary, killed two of the arguments for the new field this morning: “will make no difference to energy bills,” and her own government’s figure is 27 new jobs.
What’s left: money, and security of supply. Neither holds up either.
2/ Money first. Today’s headline is a £2.9bn boost to the economy and a new Energy Wealth Fund, £2bn to invest in clean energy from North Sea tax revenue.
Set that against what’s already been given away: £13.3bn in tax breaks to this industry over seven years. Add decommissioning relief and that passes £20bn.
3/ And decommissioning relief isn’t ordinary depreciation. A normal UK business carries a loss back one year. Oil and gas firms can carry back decommissioning losses against profits they banked up to two decades ago.
The National Audit Office has found the state has paid out more in reliefs than it collected in some periods. That’s not a tax break, that’s a refund on money already spent.
4/ So: £2bn into a new fund, against £20bn already handed out, from a tax base the OBR says collapses from £4.1bn to £0.1bn by 2030/31 regardless of this decision. The sums don’t move in the direction the headline implies.
5/ Now security of supply. This is the one dressed up as protection. Fahnbulleh’s words today: Jackdaw gas will “supply the UK... this winter,” “homegrown gas.”
That’s true. It’s also not what it sounds like.
6/ The gas isn’t ring-fenced for UK use. It goes into the National Grid and sells at the same market-linked price as gas from anywhere else. “Homegrown” describes where it’s extracted, not who gets it cheaper or first.
7/ We’ve already seen this tested. When the Strait of Hormuz closed, UK gas futures jumped over 40% in a day, even though the disruption was thousands of miles away, because the UK sits inside the same integrated European market.
6% more domestic production doesn’t change that exposure. The market doesn’t care where the gas came from, it prices on the shock.
8/ So: “homegrown” isn’t “protected.” It’s extracted here and sold at the world price, same as oil from anywhere else. The language is doing work the policy doesn’t back up.
9/ Bills: dead, by the minister’s own words. Jobs: 27, by the minister’s own words. Money: £2bn against £20bn already given away, from a revenue stream disappearing by 2030. Security: gas that isn’t ring-fenced, in a market that’s already shown it doesn’t protect against shocks.
Four arguments. None of them survive contact with what’s actually been said and done today. Another Burnham con trick.
Andrew Griffiths retweeted
Won’t lower energy bills.
Won’t boost energy security
And creates just 27 jobs.
Compared to all the benefits of investing in renewables and insulating our homes.
thelondoneconomic.com/politi…
Andrew Griffiths retweeted
Surreal to hear Energy Secretary try and say this is a "pragmatic decision."
It will do nothing to lower bills.
It will do lots for the profits of the oil & gas companies.
And will continue us further down the path of floods and wildfires.
Disastrous decision from Labour.
On going ahead with Jackdaw:
"@ZackPolanski.. says this is a betrayal of all of our futures.. do you really think this is the right thing to do?"
@Miatsf: "Well look I do.. we have seen that climate change is here.. heat waves, wild fires, drought.. its a pragmatic decision"
Andrew Griffiths retweeted
What's even the point of Labour. Cheering on benefit cuts for the most vulnerable people.
Andrew Griffiths retweeted
I really hope this isn't valid.
I said when @andyburnham won the Makerfield byelection, that I was extremely concerned. That despite the hype, he'd be nothing more than a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Everything he vowed to do has been kicked years down the road. He's doubled down on the UK's complicity in Gaza, and now he might be on the brink of greenlighting drilling in the North Sea.
This will put us back years back on addressing climate change, will do sod all to lower energy bills, and leaves us more exposed to the next global crisis that will push up gas prices.
But don't worry. Big Oil will profit. Investors will profit. The wealthy will profit.
People and the planet will pay the price, but that's just the way it goes.
@ZackPolanski
NEW: Government is expected to approve the Jackdaw gas field tomorrow, per three sources
Announcement is expected early in the morning
By the ace @nearlblog with me and @BlewettSam (and assists from @CharlieCooper8 and @abby_wallace3)
⬇️
Andrew Griffiths retweeted
Super El Niño is already raising sea levels in the Eastern Pacific by over a foot, satellite measurements reveal. This, researchers have found, will raise the risk of flooding tenfold down the entire west coast of the Americas, from Alaska to Chile.
gizmodo.com/el-nino-has-alre…
Andrew Griffiths retweeted
By the end of this Parliament, Labour will likely have approved:
1. Jackdaw
2. Rosebank
3. Third runway at Heathrow
These week cumulatively make it practically impossible for the UK to meet is Paris Agreement targets.
It will simultaneously likely have:
1. Cut the budget for national insulation/Warm Homes campaign to fund increased defence spending;
2. Slashed the UK's contribution to the UN's Green Climate Fund by 45%, reversing funding pledge made by Rishi Sunak (already happened).
We just had a summer of extreme heat and wildfires; next year is likely to be worse.
This is a war on the environment, waged because Labour simply refuses to tax and redistribute wealth, and is wedded to a totally broken and outdated concept of national rather than human security.
Madness.
NEW: Government is expected to approve the Jackdaw gas field tomorrow, per three sources
Announcement is expected early in the morning
By the ace @nearlblog with me and @BlewettSam (and assists from @CharlieCooper8 and @abby_wallace3)
⬇️
This is very good, and bang on the button.
This latest article from Thomas Pikkety, the renowned French economist and leading authority on wealth inequality, should be essential reading here in the UK.
His argument is simple.
France has never been wealthier. Yet education funding per student has fallen by 20% since 2017, public services are struggling, and inequality is deeply embedded in the system.
Sound familiar?
The problem isn't that our countries have run out of wealth. It's how that wealth is distributed, who controls it, and the political choices made to protect it.
For decades, we've been told that austerity, declining public services and falling living standards are unavoidable consequences of economic crises, yet those same decades have seen extraordinary concentrations of private wealth.
Socialise the costs. Privatise the gains.
This is the reality we all need to wake up to.
These aren't inevitable economic outcomes. They're the consequences of political choices, made over time, that have prioritised the accumulation of private wealth over the needs of society.
And as public anger grows, we're seeing a deeply concerning response: The rise of the far right, directing that anger towards immigrants, disabled people, those claiming welfare and other vulnerable groups, rather than towards the economic structures responsible for the inequalities people are rightly furious about.
As @NaomiAKlein describes fascism, "it's capitalism's most ferocious threat response. A way of directing public anger downwards at the vulnerable, rather than upwards at the system."
Fascism doesn't challenge the status quo. It protects it by giving people someone else to blame.
The fundamental question isn't whether our societies can afford something better. It's why, when we've never been wealthier, we're repeatedly told we must accept less.
We need to fundamentally rethink an economy built around extraction, exploitation and wealth concentration, and start building one that delivers equitable, sustainable prosperity for everyone.
And with the UK Budget next week, this should be a serious warning to @UKLabour.
If the Budget fails to acknowledge this fundamental reality, and instead offers another round of "difficult decisions" that protect concentrated wealth while asking ordinary people to shoulder the burden, then @andyburnham really hasn't understood what's happening across Europe.
What's unfolding in France isn't an isolated protest. It's a warning of what happens when people stop accepting that a society growing ever wealthier somehow can't afford to give them a better life.
This isn't something politicians can keep kicking down the road.
The warning signs are everywhere. The question now is whether those in power are prepared to confront the causes, or continue defending the very system that's driving the anger.
@ZackPolanski @jeremycorbyn @KemiBadenoch @Nigel_Farage
Andrew Griffiths retweeted
Cut benefits to fund job support? Westminster issues the pound, so there is no pot to raid. Nearly 1 million young people are idle because of a policy choice.
#MMT #UKGreenParty #Economics #UKPolitics #UKEconomics
theguardian.com/society/2026…
Andrew Griffiths retweeted
One million young people idle is not a moral failure. It is a policy choice. Westminster issues the pound and chose slack over work.
#MMT #UKGreenParty #Economics #UKPolitics #UKEconomics
bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq0m…
Andrew Griffiths retweeted
Beyond those who’d currently vote for a party how have their broader potential voter pools changed? The Conservatives have the highest considerers, while Labour’s combined current/consider has leapt up since July. The Lib Dem ceiling dipped, Reform stable, Greens fell most
Andrew Griffiths retweeted
A national home retrofit programme would deliver long term benefits and resilience.
The @TheGreenParty's new economic policy and fiscal framework would assess the viability of such a programme very differently.
It's far more responsible to understand the real factors at play.
Insulating Britain’s homes and investing in heat pumps would do more to cut the cost of living, create jobs and boost the UK’s economy than drilling for new oil @e3g
theguardian.com/environment/…
