July 3, 2026 • 30 mins
Merryn Somerset Webb and John Stepek are joined by Cavendish's Roger Lee to unpack Andy Burnham's North Star of "Manchesterism" and what it could mean for the UK economy, markets, and investors. They debate whether devolving more power to the regions represents genuine economic reform or simply another version of heavy-handed state intervention, while exploring the implications for growth, government spending, fiscal policy, and the UK's increasingly fragile bond market.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News. Welcome to the Marin
Dogs Money Market Rap, where we break down the biggest
moves in the markets this week and what has been
driving them. I am Marinsum's at Web Bloomberg's UK Money's
(00:25):
Editor at Large.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
And I'm joined stay we Senior report on North out
of the money Distilled newsletter.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
Welcome back from yet another holiday, John, Thank you nice time.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
It was wonderful. It was great. It was actually much
cooler than London as well. Really okay, a couple of
degrees cooler on lying was in Greece, okay.
Speaker 1 (00:44):
And while you were away lots of stuff happened.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
It did unusually normally. I come back and I just
read a big call about who nothing's changed?
Speaker 1 (00:52):
And true every time you sw away something happened.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
Every time what happened? The last name was a week?
Speaker 1 (01:00):
Can't probably some kind of another prime miniege. Most definitely
another prime minister. What else would it be? One a week? Right?
You only have to go on holiday for two weeks
and you've got a couple of your belt. Anyway, the
interesting stuff that has happened while you've been away to
the e send that any of this stuff is actually
deeply interesting, is that we have this new candidate for
prime minister who's acting as though he is prime minister already,
(01:21):
which I have said, I'm mildly irritating, but that's just me.
And he has given us a speech no questions allowed
at the end of about roughly what his policies might
or might not be, and some people would say word salad.
Some people find it very inspiring. I don't know, what
did you think, John, I.
Speaker 2 (01:37):
I'm going to go away, mostly walked Salid. I feel
that I feel that I said he was just he
was repeating a lord to stuff which seems like common
sense and that everyone says when they get in it
pout and it's like, why can't we do this? Why
isn't this easier? But actually not then explaining how he
was going to do any of it, because clearly these
common sense things can't be easy or else they have
(01:59):
been done by they have.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
Been down already exactly. I'm particularly enjoying on social media
the not the Messiah posts. I don't know if you've
seen this.
Speaker 2 (02:08):
This is a life that's very good.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
And I'm also looking forward to from being properly dressed.
I know I've had this conversation before. With the love
of God, my politicians dressed properly world stage and all
that not dignified, and I want author I want dignified.
So this week we're going to do things a little
bit differently. It's less of an immediate market wrap and
more of a sort of deep diver and largely everything
that happens in UK politics is relevant for markets, so
(02:34):
we're going to talk about that. And we have asked
onto the show one of our previous guests, Roger Lee,
who's the head of equity strategy at Cavendish, because we
want to talk a little bit more about what exactly
is now becoming known as Manchester Rism if you haven't.
Speaker 3 (02:48):
Come across it before.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
This apparently is the governing philosophy which is associated with
Andy Burnham, who as you know, is the former mayor
of Greater Manchester and seems to be looking to move
a lot of government function to Manchester. So whether you
agree with all this or not, it is an idea
that people are talking about, is that we think it's
worth unpacking a little bit. So Roger, very kindly, thank you.
Roger has come into the London studio to explain how
(03:11):
he understands Manchesterism. I don't think this is going to
take off because it's quite a difficult word to say,
what it is, where it comes from, and what it
could mean for investors and the UK economy.
Speaker 3 (03:21):
Roger, welcome back, thank you and thank you for having
me back.
Speaker 1 (03:24):
Well, you're not going to be saying that when I've
asked you to explain what Manchesterism is.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
If I can say it, or you'll edit it out appropriately.
What is Manchesterism? Given that we've only been fully aware
of it for the last twenty four hours, obviously whatever
I'm about to say is clearly subject to change. But
my understanding, and I think most commentator is understanding of Manchesterism.
It's just it's an extension of state intervention. It's an
(03:50):
extension of state intervention, but this time, instead of it
being the state intervening in the economy at a national level,
it's an attempt to intervene at a local level. And
the hope is that the outcome of that will be
better than the outcome when the state has tried to
intervene in a national level. And then Andy Burnham was
(04:12):
quite explicit of this. I mean there's a direct quote
from him where he says that intervention at a national
state government level has not worked and earn this needs
to be applied more locally. And I think that really
is the point here, is that we're not changing any
philosophy here in terms of an economic philosophy. This is
(04:34):
merely more state of intervention applied differently, and I think
that is absolutely the key to understanding what manchester Ism
is now. I think it's as I say, I stress,
it's an extension of what we have already seen. And
I think John was mentioning this. So a lot of
(04:54):
these ideas are floated around. You could cut and pay
and you'll have seen these comments from other commentators, but
you could cut and pay George Osborne's the Northern Powerhouse.
You could cut and pace leveling up his attack on
the civil service. That could have been Dominic Cummings standing there.
A lot of this is not different. It's just expressed
perhaps in a more charismatic, authentic way, but it really
(05:17):
is just an extension of the state intervention that we've
seen really since the financial crisis. And if I may
just step back a bit and why I am not
only convinced that it is merely an extension of the
existing state interventionism that we see at the moment, or statism.
It won't work. But let's put this into some sort
(05:40):
of historical context. Marrin if I may, now, I wish
i'd written this, I haven't. It's I think it's smile Ferguson. Now, certainly,
Professor Ferguson, I think he had this great insight and
he talks about the great arcs of politic political thinking
in the UK, and he talks about, you know, we
came off the Second World War. We'd had this titanic
(06:02):
victory and basically delivered by a state controlled economy. The
state had beaten the enemy, and then obviously in the
immediate post war period, the state then decided it was
going to protect its individuals and establish a welfare state
and social services. Now, so this idea of statism, the
idea that the state can deliver everything, was enshrined really
(06:28):
in those post war areas, and that carried on all
the way through through the sixties. We had this one
nation conservatism and that was not arguably it wasn't actually
that different to what the Labor Party were crowsing in
the sixties and of course this came to a fruition
in the nineteen seventies where we had where we obviously
had a lot of state intervention. This idea then in
(06:48):
that Ted Heath had in the early seventies that he
couldn't allow unemployment to go over a million people, and
so therefore he ended up buying the Clyde Shipyards and
bailing out rolls, rocks, et cetera, et cetera. And of
course this culminated in the grim economic reality that we
could not afford this level of state intervention, and it culminated,
(07:11):
of course in nineteen seventy six with an IMF intervention,
which was the largest bailout the IMF had ever done
at that point. And then of course we start the
next great arc, which obviously is the competing theory that
actually it's not the state that delivers growth, its free markets,
obviously founded by Anthony Fisher at the IEA, championed by
(07:32):
Keith Joseph and obviously the greatest exponents politically with Missus
Snatcher and Ronald Reagan. And then that overarching philosophy then
was applied through the eighties and obviously then through the nineties,
and that begrudgingly was adopted by New labor perhaps or
they accepted the need of that in the two thousands,
but that came to a crushing hold in the financial crisis,
(07:56):
because it was quite clear that free markets, unbridled free markets,
unregulated free markets in the financial system effectively bankrupted the world,
and the state in the UK and in Europe and
in the United States then had to intervene again. And
so we start the next great arc of history, which
(08:17):
is what we are seeing now, which is the ever
increasing role of the state in our lives, to the
extent that the state thought it control a virus, to
what we have now is the state will deliver growth.
And so what we are seeing here I think I
would suggest is perhaps I don't know whether it's the
(08:40):
final but it's certainly the latest iteration of statism in
practice as part of this great arc of politics, this
competition between these two competing ideologies. I think that is
the context of what we're looking at. It is the
eatst iteration of statism in an attempt to drive growth,
(09:06):
and the evidence would suggest that that growth is going
to be elusive.
Speaker 1 (09:11):
Yeah, to us, that sounds like doubling down on stuff
that already hasn't worked in that I think we would
say being more of a free market I'm sorry speaking
for you again, John, we've being more of a free
marketeered mind. We would say that if you were to
remove all the state sponsored policies that are paralyzing the
private sector, you would get your growth.
Speaker 3 (09:33):
It's genuinely accepted by most economists that you need three
economic pillars to grow an economy. You need low regulation,
low tax burden, and low energy prices. We, of course
in the UK have got the complete opposite of those three.
And so then why are we surprised when we struggle
(09:56):
to grow, we increase the regulatory burden, we increase the
tax burden, we increase the energy burden, and why are
we surprised that growth slows even more? Who then look
at the United States, who are doing what would genuinely
be accepted as pro growth supply side and fiscal economics.
(10:16):
They're reducing the regulatory burden, they're reducing the tax burden,
and of course they've got some of the lowest energy
prices in the Western world. And there is no surprise
therefore that they are growing quicker than anyone else in
the Western world. So what Andy Burnham is doing, I'm
afraid is we are having another go. And I think
this is an idea to me anyway, that this is
(10:37):
statism applied harder and applied differently, and I fear the
outcome will be exactly the same as other forms of
status and that we've seen over the last few years.
Speaker 2 (10:48):
Just be clear, it's not someone. It's devolution on this
sell of the idea of pushing poles more locally. That's
the issue so much. It's just this is basically just
and de way of painting. It looks like he's going
in a different direction. Bactly, he's just doing the same
thing as Stalin has already been doing.
Speaker 3 (11:08):
Yes, it's an extension of that. Again, I don't mean
to be flippant, but he is literally moving the desks around.
Yeah yeah, Now's just the thing.
Speaker 2 (11:16):
Britain is heavily centralized and I think this is the
point lots people make is the likes of compare to
other countries. So much of the taxi because administered centrally,
wouldn't to be a good idea if local regions had
more ability to can take account of what's going on
in their areas and administered according it has.
Speaker 1 (11:38):
Devolution actually worked in Manchester and we hear a lot
about it relatively fast growth rate and everything that's been
done there, but it's also got massive amounts of debt.
Is that growth or is that debt?
Speaker 3 (11:49):
I don't know the Manchester economy well enough mirror. It's
quite difficult to unpack whether devolution in Edinburgh, Wales has
worked at alone, with a devolution in a metropolitan area's
work and telly where it has worked, we will talk
about where it has worked. So if anyone asks you
where has devolution worked now, devolution tends to work from
an economic perspective or where they have what they call
(12:10):
as competitive federalism, And some people talk about this as
competitive devolution, but I think the economic term is competitive federalism.
This is some very clear examples of this. Florida and
Texas in the United States would be seen to have
very successful economies relative to the other United States because
they are able to effectively set their own tax rates,
both corporate and personal, and they have well known attracted
(12:34):
a significant number of inward investment as a result of that.
A bit closer to home, Switzerland is a classic example
of competitive federalism amongst the cantons. Now, of course there
is the famous canton which is perhaps the most attractive
for inward investment, and that's Zug. And I have to
confess I'm not totally sure where Zug is, but it does.
(12:57):
What is a common feature of this competitive federalism is
that devolved regions are able to set a regularity burden,
and most importantly they're able to set a fiscal tax burden.
And so the competitive federalism comes as being a great example, Florida,
Texas being example as well of setting low taxation and
(13:22):
low regulatory burden. Now, if devolution and we stressed our again,
so I'm not being dismissive about if devolution was let's say,
we were going to set up Whales as the zug
of the UK and the Welsh National Assembly were going
to slash corporation tax to zero, and they were going
to slash personal income tax to fifteen percent, and they
(13:45):
were going to remove a lot of the corporate regulatory
burden that the rest of the UK suffers from. I
could strongly predict that the Welsh economy would grow very quickly.
I didn't sense in Andy Burden speech that was the
direction of travel, because he actually talks about tax raising
(14:06):
powers amongst the regents tax raising I don't sense that
the good Burghers of Zug would be talking about tax
raising powers.
Speaker 1 (14:37):
We did. We often talk about this in the context
of Scotland, saying they have all these tax powers and
wouldn't it be great if they used it to compete
with the rest of the UK on taxes, et cetera.
But they don't seem to want to do that, So
federalism doesn't seem to be natural to the UK.
Speaker 3 (14:53):
Well, yes, this is the other interesting and again s
got job. There weren't any questions yesterday because if you're
if you are thinking about devolution in terms of establishing
competing metropolitan regions, then that sounds like awfully similar to
Singapore on Thames. That was the fantasy or the objective,
(15:14):
depending on where you sit in the Brexit debate. Of course,
this idea of competitive federalism devolution really only works outside
the EU anyway. I think there's a couple of observations here,
a couple of risks that I'm not sure he addressed.
The danger is as if you are literally just moving
desks from Whitehall to town Hall, then you double up
(15:37):
the bureaucratic burden. There is a cost to devolution, So
how is that going to be paid for? There must
be extra layers of regulation that will be applied. Here
he's already talking about trying to get value for money,
broader value criteria for assigning government contracts, and that sounds
(15:58):
to me like more regulations. Where we're actually heading here
where I said at the outset, we're actually increasing the
amount of regulatory burden. We're probably going to have to
increase the fiscal burden to pay for it all, and
that will weigh on growth. And then there's the third
element of this that I don't think has been properly
talked about, is that yet again the market is faced
(16:21):
with this fiscal uncertainty over what Burnham is going to
do in his first budget. And this is the third
time in this administration the market and corporates and individuals
have had to second guess. And we've already seen them
sort of the number of commentary about which taxes are
going up and where the tax burden is going to fall,
(16:42):
and so we end up with just more of the same.
And that's really I'm afraid the prognosis I hope it works.
I sincerely hope it does work. I hope this will
be the exception to the rule. But I struggle to
see where this sort of devolution has worked in the past.
(17:04):
France has thirty five thousand mares, and France is faced
with a fiscal potentially a fiscal certainly fiscal issues, shall
we say not a crisis. Germany obviously has an ex
very extensive federal system, and Germany is growing less than
the UK is. It is difficult to cite examples where
this devolution has worked without significant fiscal, tax and regulatory adjustments.
Speaker 1 (17:30):
Yeah, and a willingness to compete. I want to come
back in a minute to the guilt market and the
extent to which you think we can continue to bear
this increase spending in the UK. But before that, one
of the things that keeps popping into my head whenever
we'd hear about Manchesterism and about the you had London
can't be allowed to continue to be this giant, successful
money producing how that than the South of England without
(17:51):
everywhere else being pulled up along with it. What perhaps
into my head is the what they call the Birmingham problem.
Back in the nineteen sixties, when it was Birmingham that
was considered to be far too successful, not okay, expanding
too far, drawing in too many people, creating too many jobs,
simply not okay. So instead of saying, let's look at
Birmingham and see why they're doing so brilliantly and try
(18:12):
and do the same and the rest of the country,
the government put in place a series of policies deliberately
designed to prevent Birmingham expanding any further. So there were
various acts and policies. It means you couldn't get can
get planning permits if you wanted to expand in the region,
for example, then more commercial buildings allowed in the city center.
So the instinct then, which seems feels a little Burnham
to me, the instinct then was not to say, what
(18:35):
are they doing, well, let's do that everywhere else, but
to say this must be stopped. There.
Speaker 3 (18:42):
Of course, arithmetically two ways to reduce it equality, aren't
they are the numerator or the denominator.
Speaker 2 (18:49):
That's toll popy evolution.
Speaker 3 (18:54):
I think again, what I'm concerned about and very curious,
shall we say euphemistically about Andy Burnham's speech, was his
nostalgia is clear nostalgia for the nineteen seventies. Now, I'm
old enough to have lived through all the way through
the nineteen seventies. I was quite young at the start,
he used to say. But I do find it rather
(19:16):
curious that Roburnham seems to have this nostalgia for the seventies,
which was of course categorized characterized rather by a period
of stagflation, the only time we've ever experienced real stagflation
in the UK. It was the first time we've ever
experienced mass unemployment since the Great Depression, and of course,
as I've just mentioned, it's the first time and that
(19:37):
the UK had to be bailed out by the IMF.
It just seems to me odd that the seventies isn't
the usual template for economic renewal and regeneration. In fact,
most people would say it is the example of not
what to do, and of course actually using that as
(19:59):
the EXAs, I find that curious.
Speaker 1 (20:03):
Yeah, okay, so let's talk markets. Then we're already in
a big part of trouble debt wise in the UK.
Spending simply doesn't seem to come down every time we
get new fiscal rules, which we seem to get all
the time. It's obvious from the beginning that they're not
going to be kept, because it's always we spend upfront
and promise we'll cut it later. We'll cut it later. Everything.
I'll be fine later, we'll meet those fiscal rules. So
(20:23):
I think we already knew that Rachel Reaves wasn't going
to comply with her own fiscal rules, and now we're
worried that Burnham might introduce some new fiscal rules, or
change the terms of the existing physical rules, or have
more exemptions, whatever it is that he does. But one
thing that I think we're all reasonably clear on is
that this spending binge is not ending. How much more
(20:44):
will the market tolerate? Where does this come to any
sort of end.
Speaker 3 (20:49):
That's a sort of really interesting question. I'm going to
start by making a positive comment about burnham speech. I think,
as again in we do try and be balanced, we
do try and be objective, but we also can't ignore
the historical and economic facts. But clearly one of the
very positives that the market took from this is the
Burdam said on a number of occasions that he was
(21:09):
going to stick to the fiscal rules. So that is
a very clear and demonstrable positive that the market took
at face value. Now you and I have seen various
commentaries subsequent to that about whether the fiscal rules will
be extended over the ten year time horizon that he's
talking about. I don't know whether that's he certainly didn't
(21:31):
hint at that in the speech, so that's just purely speculation.
I think any change to the fiscal rules would probably
be received badly by the bomb market. Not that there
isn't merit in extending the time horizon of the fiscal rules,
it's just that we're coming at this from a position
(21:51):
where I fear the credibility of the UK's fiscal position
is very poor. And that's not me saying that. That
is evidenced by the fact that, Okay, borrowing costs still
the highest in the G seven. So I think we're
coming at this from position of weakness in terms of
our international credibility if you just basically just look at
the bond spreads at the moment. So I think any
(22:12):
sort of changes the fiscal rules could would probably be
taken badly. So where are we as we stand at
the moment, And again we come back to this thorny
subject of the deficit, which is such a mystery to
a lot of people, but is just it's just so important.
And of course the deficit is the difference between what
the government spends, which is about one point four trillion
(22:33):
pounds a year, and what it generates, which is about
one point three trillion in an ideal world. And then
we take the difference of that and use that as
a percentage over the size of the UK economic which
is about three trillion pounds. So the numbers actually are
quite simple. The makeup of those numbers is incredibly complicated.
So where we are at the moment, in an ideal
(22:54):
world economy runs with this deficit at about three percent
of GDP. So again, just doing the maths, three percent
of a three trillion economy is about ninety billion, and
that's usually where most economists would argue it would be
an optimal place for an economy to operate. So the
simple maths at the moment, So the Ober forecast for
(23:14):
this year is around one hundred and twenty billion. That
has come down from last year for the reasons that
we can talk about, but it's about one hundred and
twenty billion. The problem is for the first two months
of the fiscal year, our debt has exceeded the Ober
forecast by seven point seven billion pounds. And so if
(23:36):
you then just basically do some very rude arithmetic and
just multiply that up by two months is seven point seven.
If you multiply that by for the twelve months, then
you get the fiscal deficit in the UK's around one
hundred and sixty billion. That's just doing them very simple arithmetic.
A lot of other moving parts I have to stress
or tax take could be et cetera, et cetera, whether
(23:58):
the economy slows, If the economy slows further, welfare payments
goes up. But just merely extrapolating the first two months
of the public secting neck borrowing over the course of
the remainder of the year. Now that one hundred and
sixty billion that translates if we do the maths over
three trillion pounds of GDP, that translates to about five
and a half percent deficit. That is what France is
(24:21):
currently experiencing. The danger zone is said to be six.
And you know, there are a lot of moving parts
in this. What happens if the economy slows because of
this increased burden of regulatory and tax burdens. The Employer
Rights Act hasn't really fed through yet into into corporate
profitability and behaviors. Maybe that will slow the UK Unemployment
(24:42):
is sadly rising at the moment. We've seen this in
almost every single month since the general election. If unemployment
goes up, then the cost of welfare goes up and
the tax take from those unemployed people goes down. Simple arithmetic.
If the economy starts to slow, we've purchased less goods
that which is on the largest tax risers tax generators
in the UK, that comes down. So this is this
(25:06):
is the sort of the reality that Andy Burnham is inheriting.
People talk about it as a fiscal vice. It is
a fiscal vice because he's stuck between. One side of
the vice is the bomb market that seems very reluctant
to allow more borrowing, and the other side of the
vice is a parliamentary Labor Party that seems very reluctant
(25:28):
to allow spending cuts. And he is called in the
middle of that vice.
Speaker 2 (25:34):
I mean, Kevin that what do you think are the
EIDs that he lasts any longer than Kostama Hayes.
Speaker 3 (25:44):
I don't know. I would be betting. If I was
going to bet on this, I'd be betting that he'd
be fighting the next election. I think the kind of
the question behind your question if I made or I'll
answer the question I wish you'd ask. I think if
we look at this single most important issue to most voters,
and you can go back almost to any opinion poll
(26:05):
now for the last fifteen years, certainly the last five,
it is usually depending on how people phrase it, is
the cost of living crisis. It's basically the fact that
people's incomes aren't going up, or aren't perceived to be
going up. And it's basically a critique of the economy.
And this is seventy percent. This is by far and
away the most important issue, followed by immigration from the NHS.
(26:26):
But we don't need to go to we do those
subjects now. But the economy is the most important issue
facing most voters and they express that as the cost
of living. Will Andy Burnham's Manchesterism improve the economic outlook
(26:46):
of the UK? I find it difficult. I think at
best it will be merely an extension of what we
have seen to date. At worst, I think, as I've
already mentioned, it will be increased the regulatory burden further
and it will increase the fiscal burden. So the risk,
(27:08):
I stress the risk, it's not necessarily our forecast. The
risk is the economy slows further from here and that
is not going to be electorally popular for whoever is
sitting in the number ten, even if they are more charismatic,
more personable and more authentic. The reality is it's about
(27:29):
the economy, yea.
Speaker 1 (27:30):
And I suppose the other thing to say is that
even if Manchesterism was the right policy, which it could be,
I mean, let's not be too judge you right, could be,
it's very hard to imagine that it can be implemented
successfully in time for the next election. These are long
(27:52):
term policies and even if they are the right, policies
that are difficult to put in place and not immediate it.
Speaker 3 (28:01):
I think that's a great point, Marin. It's time and
what you could end up with. Let's assume that it works.
Let's assume that it works, as you just said hypothetically,
Let's assume that it works. The immediate issue now facing
the UK is this fiscal uncertainty until the next budget.
So We've already got that to deal with. That's going
to be a hangover. We know how the markets responded that.
(28:21):
Because we've been here twice before, we know that there
will be There has to be cost associated with this.
There has to be cost and that you would think
that would be some sort of drag on the economy
before you get the benefits at some point in the future.
So I think it will all be difficult to see
(28:41):
how this could this could start to bear fruit, even
if it were to bear fruit by July twenty twenty nine,
which I think is the latest state for the next election,
but yes, it will be. It will be very interesting
when maybe that begs the question of whether Burnham does
go for an earlier election or not. If I was
part of one of his strategy teams, I might be
(29:02):
thinking about the timing of this.
Speaker 1 (29:03):
I would decision I would do it. I would definitely
do it. Would you go for an early election? John,
if you're Andy Burnham, I need a yes or a no,
because we're about to wrap. I'm going to see yes, yes, yes,
And with you Roger, if you were actually Andy Burnham,
yes or no? Would you go for an early election?
Speaker 3 (29:21):
Oh? Definitely not.
Speaker 1 (29:22):
No, definitely not okay, all right.
Speaker 3 (29:24):
Definitely they're definitely not risk a hung parliament.
Speaker 1 (29:27):
No, okay, irritating, I felt something exciting might happen. Never mind,
So on that happy note, Roger, thank you very much.
Speaker 2 (29:33):
Indeed, and thank you John, Thanks Milan.
Speaker 1 (29:36):
Thanks for listening for this week's Marin Talks Money, Markets Rap.
If you like our show, rate review and subscribe wherever
you listen to podcast ors. If you should follow me
in John on ex or Twitter at marins w and
John Underscore step Back. This episode was produced by Some
Anxiety and Jennifer Seeley's sound designed by Blake Maples and
Aaron Casper. Questions and concenters on this show and all
our shows are always welcome. Our show email is Merror
(29:57):
Money at Bloomberg dot net
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News. Welcome to the Marin
Dogs Money Market Rap, where we break down the biggest
moves in the markets this week and what has been
driving them. I am Marinsum's at Web Bloomberg's UK Money's
(00:25):
Editor at Large.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
And I'm joined stay we Senior report on North out
of the money Distilled newsletter.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
Welcome back from yet another holiday, John, Thank you nice time.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
It was wonderful. It was great. It was actually much
cooler than London as well. Really okay, a couple of
degrees cooler on lying was in Greece, okay.
Speaker 1 (00:44):
And while you were away lots of stuff happened.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
It did unusually normally. I come back and I just
read a big call about who nothing's changed?
Speaker 1 (00:52):
And true every time you sw away something happened.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
Every time what happened? The last name was a week?
Speaker 1 (01:00):
Can't probably some kind of another prime miniege. Most definitely
another prime minister. What else would it be? One a week? Right?
You only have to go on holiday for two weeks
and you've got a couple of your belt. Anyway, the
interesting stuff that has happened while you've been away to
the e send that any of this stuff is actually
deeply interesting, is that we have this new candidate for
prime minister who's acting as though he is prime minister already,
(01:21):
which I have said, I'm mildly irritating, but that's just me.
And he has given us a speech no questions allowed
at the end of about roughly what his policies might
or might not be, and some people would say word salad.
Some people find it very inspiring. I don't know, what
did you think, John, I.
Speaker 2 (01:37):
I'm going to go away, mostly walked Salid. I feel
that I feel that I said he was just he
was repeating a lord to stuff which seems like common
sense and that everyone says when they get in it
pout and it's like, why can't we do this? Why
isn't this easier? But actually not then explaining how he
was going to do any of it, because clearly these
common sense things can't be easy or else they have
(01:59):
been done by they have.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
Been down already exactly. I'm particularly enjoying on social media
the not the Messiah posts. I don't know if you've
seen this.
Speaker 2 (02:08):
This is a life that's very good.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
And I'm also looking forward to from being properly dressed.
I know I've had this conversation before. With the love
of God, my politicians dressed properly world stage and all
that not dignified, and I want author I want dignified.
So this week we're going to do things a little
bit differently. It's less of an immediate market wrap and
more of a sort of deep diver and largely everything
that happens in UK politics is relevant for markets, so
(02:34):
we're going to talk about that. And we have asked
onto the show one of our previous guests, Roger Lee,
who's the head of equity strategy at Cavendish, because we
want to talk a little bit more about what exactly
is now becoming known as Manchester Rism if you haven't.
Speaker 3 (02:48):
Come across it before.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
This apparently is the governing philosophy which is associated with
Andy Burnham, who as you know, is the former mayor
of Greater Manchester and seems to be looking to move
a lot of government function to Manchester. So whether you
agree with all this or not, it is an idea
that people are talking about, is that we think it's
worth unpacking a little bit. So Roger, very kindly, thank you.
Roger has come into the London studio to explain how
(03:11):
he understands Manchesterism. I don't think this is going to
take off because it's quite a difficult word to say,
what it is, where it comes from, and what it
could mean for investors and the UK economy.
Speaker 3 (03:21):
Roger, welcome back, thank you and thank you for having
me back.
Speaker 1 (03:24):
Well, you're not going to be saying that when I've
asked you to explain what Manchesterism is.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
If I can say it, or you'll edit it out appropriately.
What is Manchesterism? Given that we've only been fully aware
of it for the last twenty four hours, obviously whatever
I'm about to say is clearly subject to change. But
my understanding, and I think most commentator is understanding of Manchesterism.
It's just it's an extension of state intervention. It's an
(03:50):
extension of state intervention, but this time, instead of it
being the state intervening in the economy at a national level,
it's an attempt to intervene at a local level. And
the hope is that the outcome of that will be
better than the outcome when the state has tried to
intervene in a national level. And then Andy Burnham was
(04:12):
quite explicit of this. I mean there's a direct quote
from him where he says that intervention at a national
state government level has not worked and earn this needs
to be applied more locally. And I think that really
is the point here, is that we're not changing any
philosophy here in terms of an economic philosophy. This is
(04:34):
merely more state of intervention applied differently, and I think
that is absolutely the key to understanding what manchester Ism
is now. I think it's as I say, I stress,
it's an extension of what we have already seen. And
I think John was mentioning this. So a lot of
(04:54):
these ideas are floated around. You could cut and pay
and you'll have seen these comments from other commentators, but
you could cut and pay George Osborne's the Northern Powerhouse.
You could cut and pace leveling up his attack on
the civil service. That could have been Dominic Cummings standing there.
A lot of this is not different. It's just expressed
perhaps in a more charismatic, authentic way, but it really
(05:17):
is just an extension of the state intervention that we've
seen really since the financial crisis. And if I may
just step back a bit and why I am not
only convinced that it is merely an extension of the
existing state interventionism that we see at the moment, or statism.
It won't work. But let's put this into some sort
(05:40):
of historical context. Marrin if I may, now, I wish
i'd written this, I haven't. It's I think it's smile Ferguson. Now, certainly,
Professor Ferguson, I think he had this great insight and
he talks about the great arcs of politic political thinking
in the UK, and he talks about, you know, we
came off the Second World War. We'd had this titanic
(06:02):
victory and basically delivered by a state controlled economy. The
state had beaten the enemy, and then obviously in the
immediate post war period, the state then decided it was
going to protect its individuals and establish a welfare state
and social services. Now, so this idea of statism, the
idea that the state can deliver everything, was enshrined really
(06:28):
in those post war areas, and that carried on all
the way through through the sixties. We had this one
nation conservatism and that was not arguably it wasn't actually
that different to what the Labor Party were crowsing in
the sixties and of course this came to a fruition
in the nineteen seventies where we had where we obviously
had a lot of state intervention. This idea then in
(06:48):
that Ted Heath had in the early seventies that he
couldn't allow unemployment to go over a million people, and
so therefore he ended up buying the Clyde Shipyards and
bailing out rolls, rocks, et cetera, et cetera. And of
course this culminated in the grim economic reality that we
could not afford this level of state intervention, and it culminated,
(07:11):
of course in nineteen seventy six with an IMF intervention,
which was the largest bailout the IMF had ever done
at that point. And then of course we start the
next great arc, which obviously is the competing theory that
actually it's not the state that delivers growth, its free markets,
obviously founded by Anthony Fisher at the IEA, championed by
(07:32):
Keith Joseph and obviously the greatest exponents politically with Missus
Snatcher and Ronald Reagan. And then that overarching philosophy then
was applied through the eighties and obviously then through the nineties,
and that begrudgingly was adopted by New labor perhaps or
they accepted the need of that in the two thousands,
but that came to a crushing hold in the financial crisis,
(07:56):
because it was quite clear that free markets, unbridled free markets,
unregulated free markets in the financial system effectively bankrupted the world,
and the state in the UK and in Europe and
in the United States then had to intervene again. And
so we start the next great arc of history, which
(08:17):
is what we are seeing now, which is the ever
increasing role of the state in our lives, to the
extent that the state thought it control a virus, to
what we have now is the state will deliver growth.
And so what we are seeing here I think I
would suggest is perhaps I don't know whether it's the
(08:40):
final but it's certainly the latest iteration of statism in
practice as part of this great arc of politics, this
competition between these two competing ideologies. I think that is
the context of what we're looking at. It is the
eatst iteration of statism in an attempt to drive growth,
(09:06):
and the evidence would suggest that that growth is going
to be elusive.
Speaker 1 (09:11):
Yeah, to us, that sounds like doubling down on stuff
that already hasn't worked in that I think we would
say being more of a free market I'm sorry speaking
for you again, John, we've being more of a free
marketeered mind. We would say that if you were to
remove all the state sponsored policies that are paralyzing the
private sector, you would get your growth.
Speaker 3 (09:33):
It's genuinely accepted by most economists that you need three
economic pillars to grow an economy. You need low regulation,
low tax burden, and low energy prices. We, of course
in the UK have got the complete opposite of those three.
And so then why are we surprised when we struggle
(09:56):
to grow, we increase the regulatory burden, we increase the
tax burden, we increase the energy burden, and why are
we surprised that growth slows even more? Who then look
at the United States, who are doing what would genuinely
be accepted as pro growth supply side and fiscal economics.
(10:16):
They're reducing the regulatory burden, they're reducing the tax burden,
and of course they've got some of the lowest energy
prices in the Western world. And there is no surprise
therefore that they are growing quicker than anyone else in
the Western world. So what Andy Burnham is doing, I'm
afraid is we are having another go. And I think
this is an idea to me anyway, that this is
(10:37):
statism applied harder and applied differently, and I fear the
outcome will be exactly the same as other forms of
status and that we've seen over the last few years.
Speaker 2 (10:48):
Just be clear, it's not someone. It's devolution on this
sell of the idea of pushing poles more locally. That's
the issue so much. It's just this is basically just
and de way of painting. It looks like he's going
in a different direction. Bactly, he's just doing the same
thing as Stalin has already been doing.
Speaker 3 (11:08):
Yes, it's an extension of that. Again, I don't mean
to be flippant, but he is literally moving the desks around.
Yeah yeah, Now's just the thing.
Speaker 2 (11:16):
Britain is heavily centralized and I think this is the
point lots people make is the likes of compare to
other countries. So much of the taxi because administered centrally,
wouldn't to be a good idea if local regions had
more ability to can take account of what's going on
in their areas and administered according it has.
Speaker 1 (11:38):
Devolution actually worked in Manchester and we hear a lot
about it relatively fast growth rate and everything that's been
done there, but it's also got massive amounts of debt.
Is that growth or is that debt?
Speaker 3 (11:49):
I don't know the Manchester economy well enough mirror. It's
quite difficult to unpack whether devolution in Edinburgh, Wales has
worked at alone, with a devolution in a metropolitan area's
work and telly where it has worked, we will talk
about where it has worked. So if anyone asks you
where has devolution worked now, devolution tends to work from
an economic perspective or where they have what they call
(12:10):
as competitive federalism, And some people talk about this as
competitive devolution, but I think the economic term is competitive federalism.
This is some very clear examples of this. Florida and
Texas in the United States would be seen to have
very successful economies relative to the other United States because
they are able to effectively set their own tax rates,
both corporate and personal, and they have well known attracted
(12:34):
a significant number of inward investment as a result of that.
A bit closer to home, Switzerland is a classic example
of competitive federalism amongst the cantons. Now, of course there
is the famous canton which is perhaps the most attractive
for inward investment, and that's Zug. And I have to
confess I'm not totally sure where Zug is, but it does.
(12:57):
What is a common feature of this competitive federalism is
that devolved regions are able to set a regularity burden,
and most importantly they're able to set a fiscal tax burden.
And so the competitive federalism comes as being a great example, Florida,
Texas being example as well of setting low taxation and
(13:22):
low regulatory burden. Now, if devolution and we stressed our again,
so I'm not being dismissive about if devolution was let's say,
we were going to set up Whales as the zug
of the UK and the Welsh National Assembly were going
to slash corporation tax to zero, and they were going
to slash personal income tax to fifteen percent, and they
(13:45):
were going to remove a lot of the corporate regulatory
burden that the rest of the UK suffers from. I
could strongly predict that the Welsh economy would grow very quickly.
I didn't sense in Andy Burden speech that was the
direction of travel, because he actually talks about tax raising
(14:06):
powers amongst the regents tax raising I don't sense that
the good Burghers of Zug would be talking about tax
raising powers.
Speaker 1 (14:37):
We did. We often talk about this in the context
of Scotland, saying they have all these tax powers and
wouldn't it be great if they used it to compete
with the rest of the UK on taxes, et cetera.
But they don't seem to want to do that, So
federalism doesn't seem to be natural to the UK.
Speaker 3 (14:53):
Well, yes, this is the other interesting and again s
got job. There weren't any questions yesterday because if you're
if you are thinking about devolution in terms of establishing
competing metropolitan regions, then that sounds like awfully similar to
Singapore on Thames. That was the fantasy or the objective,
(15:14):
depending on where you sit in the Brexit debate. Of course,
this idea of competitive federalism devolution really only works outside
the EU anyway. I think there's a couple of observations here,
a couple of risks that I'm not sure he addressed.
The danger is as if you are literally just moving
desks from Whitehall to town Hall, then you double up
(15:37):
the bureaucratic burden. There is a cost to devolution, So
how is that going to be paid for? There must
be extra layers of regulation that will be applied. Here
he's already talking about trying to get value for money,
broader value criteria for assigning government contracts, and that sounds
(15:58):
to me like more regulations. Where we're actually heading here
where I said at the outset, we're actually increasing the
amount of regulatory burden. We're probably going to have to
increase the fiscal burden to pay for it all, and
that will weigh on growth. And then there's the third
element of this that I don't think has been properly
talked about, is that yet again the market is faced
(16:21):
with this fiscal uncertainty over what Burnham is going to
do in his first budget. And this is the third
time in this administration the market and corporates and individuals
have had to second guess. And we've already seen them
sort of the number of commentary about which taxes are
going up and where the tax burden is going to fall,
(16:42):
and so we end up with just more of the same.
And that's really I'm afraid the prognosis I hope it works.
I sincerely hope it does work. I hope this will
be the exception to the rule. But I struggle to
see where this sort of devolution has worked in the past.
(17:04):
France has thirty five thousand mares, and France is faced
with a fiscal potentially a fiscal certainly fiscal issues, shall
we say not a crisis. Germany obviously has an ex
very extensive federal system, and Germany is growing less than
the UK is. It is difficult to cite examples where
this devolution has worked without significant fiscal, tax and regulatory adjustments.
Speaker 1 (17:30):
Yeah, and a willingness to compete. I want to come
back in a minute to the guilt market and the
extent to which you think we can continue to bear
this increase spending in the UK. But before that, one
of the things that keeps popping into my head whenever
we'd hear about Manchesterism and about the you had London
can't be allowed to continue to be this giant, successful
money producing how that than the South of England without
(17:51):
everywhere else being pulled up along with it. What perhaps
into my head is the what they call the Birmingham problem.
Back in the nineteen sixties, when it was Birmingham that
was considered to be far too successful, not okay, expanding
too far, drawing in too many people, creating too many jobs,
simply not okay. So instead of saying, let's look at
Birmingham and see why they're doing so brilliantly and try
(18:12):
and do the same and the rest of the country,
the government put in place a series of policies deliberately
designed to prevent Birmingham expanding any further. So there were
various acts and policies. It means you couldn't get can
get planning permits if you wanted to expand in the region,
for example, then more commercial buildings allowed in the city center.
So the instinct then, which seems feels a little Burnham
to me, the instinct then was not to say, what
(18:35):
are they doing, well, let's do that everywhere else, but
to say this must be stopped. There.
Speaker 3 (18:42):
Of course, arithmetically two ways to reduce it equality, aren't
they are the numerator or the denominator.
Speaker 2 (18:49):
That's toll popy evolution.
Speaker 3 (18:54):
I think again, what I'm concerned about and very curious,
shall we say euphemistically about Andy Burnham's speech, was his
nostalgia is clear nostalgia for the nineteen seventies. Now, I'm
old enough to have lived through all the way through
the nineteen seventies. I was quite young at the start,
he used to say. But I do find it rather
(19:16):
curious that Roburnham seems to have this nostalgia for the seventies,
which was of course categorized characterized rather by a period
of stagflation, the only time we've ever experienced real stagflation
in the UK. It was the first time we've ever
experienced mass unemployment since the Great Depression, and of course,
as I've just mentioned, it's the first time and that
(19:37):
the UK had to be bailed out by the IMF.
It just seems to me odd that the seventies isn't
the usual template for economic renewal and regeneration. In fact,
most people would say it is the example of not
what to do, and of course actually using that as
(19:59):
the EXAs, I find that curious.
Speaker 1 (20:03):
Yeah, okay, so let's talk markets. Then we're already in
a big part of trouble debt wise in the UK.
Spending simply doesn't seem to come down every time we
get new fiscal rules, which we seem to get all
the time. It's obvious from the beginning that they're not
going to be kept, because it's always we spend upfront
and promise we'll cut it later. We'll cut it later. Everything.
I'll be fine later, we'll meet those fiscal rules. So
(20:23):
I think we already knew that Rachel Reaves wasn't going
to comply with her own fiscal rules, and now we're
worried that Burnham might introduce some new fiscal rules, or
change the terms of the existing physical rules, or have
more exemptions, whatever it is that he does. But one
thing that I think we're all reasonably clear on is
that this spending binge is not ending. How much more
(20:44):
will the market tolerate? Where does this come to any
sort of end.
Speaker 3 (20:49):
That's a sort of really interesting question. I'm going to
start by making a positive comment about burnham speech. I think,
as again in we do try and be balanced, we
do try and be objective, but we also can't ignore
the historical and economic facts. But clearly one of the
very positives that the market took from this is the
Burdam said on a number of occasions that he was
(21:09):
going to stick to the fiscal rules. So that is
a very clear and demonstrable positive that the market took
at face value. Now you and I have seen various
commentaries subsequent to that about whether the fiscal rules will
be extended over the ten year time horizon that he's
talking about. I don't know whether that's he certainly didn't
(21:31):
hint at that in the speech, so that's just purely speculation.
I think any change to the fiscal rules would probably
be received badly by the bomb market. Not that there
isn't merit in extending the time horizon of the fiscal rules,
it's just that we're coming at this from a position
(21:51):
where I fear the credibility of the UK's fiscal position
is very poor. And that's not me saying that. That
is evidenced by the fact that, Okay, borrowing costs still
the highest in the G seven. So I think we're
coming at this from position of weakness in terms of
our international credibility if you just basically just look at
the bond spreads at the moment. So I think any
(22:12):
sort of changes the fiscal rules could would probably be
taken badly. So where are we as we stand at
the moment, And again we come back to this thorny
subject of the deficit, which is such a mystery to
a lot of people, but is just it's just so important.
And of course the deficit is the difference between what
the government spends, which is about one point four trillion
(22:33):
pounds a year, and what it generates, which is about
one point three trillion in an ideal world. And then
we take the difference of that and use that as
a percentage over the size of the UK economic which
is about three trillion pounds. So the numbers actually are
quite simple. The makeup of those numbers is incredibly complicated.
So where we are at the moment, in an ideal
(22:54):
world economy runs with this deficit at about three percent
of GDP. So again, just doing the maths, three percent
of a three trillion economy is about ninety billion, and
that's usually where most economists would argue it would be
an optimal place for an economy to operate. So the
simple maths at the moment, So the Ober forecast for
(23:14):
this year is around one hundred and twenty billion. That
has come down from last year for the reasons that
we can talk about, but it's about one hundred and
twenty billion. The problem is for the first two months
of the fiscal year, our debt has exceeded the Ober
forecast by seven point seven billion pounds. And so if
(23:36):
you then just basically do some very rude arithmetic and
just multiply that up by two months is seven point seven.
If you multiply that by for the twelve months, then
you get the fiscal deficit in the UK's around one
hundred and sixty billion. That's just doing them very simple arithmetic.
A lot of other moving parts I have to stress
or tax take could be et cetera, et cetera, whether
(23:58):
the economy slows, If the economy slows further, welfare payments
goes up. But just merely extrapolating the first two months
of the public secting neck borrowing over the course of
the remainder of the year. Now that one hundred and
sixty billion that translates if we do the maths over
three trillion pounds of GDP, that translates to about five
and a half percent deficit. That is what France is
(24:21):
currently experiencing. The danger zone is said to be six.
And you know, there are a lot of moving parts
in this. What happens if the economy slows because of
this increased burden of regulatory and tax burdens. The Employer
Rights Act hasn't really fed through yet into into corporate
profitability and behaviors. Maybe that will slow the UK Unemployment
(24:42):
is sadly rising at the moment. We've seen this in
almost every single month since the general election. If unemployment
goes up, then the cost of welfare goes up and
the tax take from those unemployed people goes down. Simple arithmetic.
If the economy starts to slow, we've purchased less goods
that which is on the largest tax risers tax generators
in the UK, that comes down. So this is this
(25:06):
is the sort of the reality that Andy Burnham is inheriting.
People talk about it as a fiscal vice. It is
a fiscal vice because he's stuck between. One side of
the vice is the bomb market that seems very reluctant
to allow more borrowing, and the other side of the
vice is a parliamentary Labor Party that seems very reluctant
(25:28):
to allow spending cuts. And he is called in the
middle of that vice.
Speaker 2 (25:34):
I mean, Kevin that what do you think are the
EIDs that he lasts any longer than Kostama Hayes.
Speaker 3 (25:44):
I don't know. I would be betting. If I was
going to bet on this, I'd be betting that he'd
be fighting the next election. I think the kind of
the question behind your question if I made or I'll
answer the question I wish you'd ask. I think if
we look at this single most important issue to most voters,
and you can go back almost to any opinion poll
(26:05):
now for the last fifteen years, certainly the last five,
it is usually depending on how people phrase it, is
the cost of living crisis. It's basically the fact that
people's incomes aren't going up, or aren't perceived to be
going up. And it's basically a critique of the economy.
And this is seventy percent. This is by far and
away the most important issue, followed by immigration from the NHS.
(26:26):
But we don't need to go to we do those
subjects now. But the economy is the most important issue
facing most voters and they express that as the cost
of living. Will Andy Burnham's Manchesterism improve the economic outlook
(26:46):
of the UK? I find it difficult. I think at
best it will be merely an extension of what we
have seen to date. At worst, I think, as I've
already mentioned, it will be increased the regulatory burden further
and it will increase the fiscal burden. So the risk,
(27:08):
I stress the risk, it's not necessarily our forecast. The
risk is the economy slows further from here and that
is not going to be electorally popular for whoever is
sitting in the number ten, even if they are more charismatic,
more personable and more authentic. The reality is it's about
(27:29):
the economy, yea.
Speaker 1 (27:30):
And I suppose the other thing to say is that
even if Manchesterism was the right policy, which it could be,
I mean, let's not be too judge you right, could be,
it's very hard to imagine that it can be implemented
successfully in time for the next election. These are long
(27:52):
term policies and even if they are the right, policies
that are difficult to put in place and not immediate it.
Speaker 3 (28:01):
I think that's a great point, Marin. It's time and
what you could end up with. Let's assume that it works.
Let's assume that it works, as you just said hypothetically,
Let's assume that it works. The immediate issue now facing
the UK is this fiscal uncertainty until the next budget.
So We've already got that to deal with. That's going
to be a hangover. We know how the markets responded that.
(28:21):
Because we've been here twice before, we know that there
will be There has to be cost associated with this.
There has to be cost and that you would think
that would be some sort of drag on the economy
before you get the benefits at some point in the future.
So I think it will all be difficult to see
(28:41):
how this could this could start to bear fruit, even
if it were to bear fruit by July twenty twenty nine,
which I think is the latest state for the next election,
but yes, it will be. It will be very interesting
when maybe that begs the question of whether Burnham does
go for an earlier election or not. If I was
part of one of his strategy teams, I might be
(29:02):
thinking about the timing of this.
Speaker 1 (29:03):
I would decision I would do it. I would definitely
do it. Would you go for an early election? John,
if you're Andy Burnham, I need a yes or a no,
because we're about to wrap. I'm going to see yes, yes, yes,
And with you Roger, if you were actually Andy Burnham,
yes or no? Would you go for an early election?
Speaker 3 (29:21):
Oh? Definitely not.
Speaker 1 (29:22):
No, definitely not okay, all right.
Speaker 3 (29:24):
Definitely they're definitely not risk a hung parliament.
Speaker 1 (29:27):
No, okay, irritating, I felt something exciting might happen. Never mind,
So on that happy note, Roger, thank you very much.
Speaker 2 (29:33):
Indeed, and thank you John, Thanks Milan.
Speaker 1 (29:36):
Thanks for listening for this week's Marin Talks Money, Markets Rap.
If you like our show, rate review and subscribe wherever
you listen to podcast ors. If you should follow me
in John on ex or Twitter at marins w and
John Underscore step Back. This episode was produced by Some
Anxiety and Jennifer Seeley's sound designed by Blake Maples and
Aaron Casper. Questions and concenters on this show and all
our shows are always welcome. Our show email is Merror
(29:57):
Money at Bloomberg dot net
Host
Merryn Somerset Webb
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.