Pubs are a big thing in the news here. The UK government has decreed that the boozers can stay open until 5am tomorrow morning, so England fans can watch their team play Mexico in the World Cup (kick-off 1am).
Police unions are grumbling that the late decision is causing chaos to their roster system (as well as the risk of that well-known combination of late-night, heat, alcohol and sport leading to an upsurge in violent incidents). They say England’s route through the tournament was well known months ago, so this could have been better prepared.
But then again, an early announcement would have negated the political benefit of the obvious populism of a feel-good gesture from the top.
Despite the fact that this government frets more than most about the lack of productivity that is behind a lack of growth in the UK economy, it also recog0inises that there is a difference between the cost of things and the value of things – a nation that occasionally lets its hair down is achieving an intangible benefit: i.e. making people feel that life is good, and that we all share common moments of joy or heartache of the sporting variety, and that such moments are a positive in the socio-political balance sheet.
Feeling good is good for the economy, which is a long-winded, highfalutin way of saying don’t expect to hear from me on RTÉ’s Morning Ireland tomorrow.
Such moments come and go, but Andy Burnham is talking about giving the pub trade the kind of tax-based lift that is normally the preserve of Irish politics.
And because he is talking of changing the tax law, it’s a longer term lift than merely opening till five am on one particular Monday in one particular year.
Burnham’s big policy ideas
In his first broadcast interview since winning the Makerfield by-election a fortnight ago, Mr Burnham started to fill in a little of the detail behind his big policy ideas – the ones he set out in a speech in Manchester at the start of the week.
His plan is to cut the rates charged by local authorities on pubs – and select other ‘high street’ retailers to help keep them alive. This would be paid for by increasing the rates charge on warehouses and out of town retail parks.
He told interviewer Andrew Marr on LBC radio: “I believe there is a case for higher business rates on warehouses and the major developments we see on the outskirts of our cities, so that we can cut business rates for pubs, and I proposed a 20% cut, and to lift some high street businesses out of business rates altogether.
“I say some and not all, because I think it’s important to, if you like, prioritise and reward the businesses that bring social benefit, the businesses that bring people together, the bars, the restaurants, the coffee shops, the hairdressers, because the high street really needs to get more of our attention, we need to bring life to the high street.”
Even so, he was quick to stress his fiscally-sound credentials – the books have to balance: “I am not undisciplined when it comes to the public finances – I was in the Treasury. I ran the Department of Health, and – it was tight – but we had a very healthy set of finances.
“I’ve run Greater Manchester, the fastest growing city region in the country for a decade, and you can’t make it the fastest growing city region in the country, Andrew, without strong business confidence. And from those rock solid public finances come business confidence that has helped us get the growth.”
Britain’s costly debt pile
The stress on public finances is part of fending off the attacks that have been coming steadily from political opponents, that Burnham represents some sort of sharp turn to the left (an idea much derided by those on the actual left).
Nevertheless talk of more control over utility companies – as Burnham did in his Manchester speech and LBC interview – prompt concerns in view of Britain’s large and very costly debt pile.
It leaves little room for an increase in public spending, and any new direction in spending will have to come from a diversion of existing resources, or a shuffling around of the tax burden. This is what the pub rates cut policy represents – fiscally neutral, but some pay more so others can pay less. While utterly feasible, it represents the high end of the art of politics – getting such an idea through the system without scaring the horses requires considerable skill.
All governments are resource constrained – that is they can spend more money than they have (or than the taxpayers have, more to the point). The next British prime minister will face the same resource constraints, demands and politically toxic choices as Keir Starmer, Rishi Sunak et al. Burnham insists something must change – but to do so some apple carts will have to be upset.
The most likely target for disruption is the state pension system, and its “triple lock” formula for annual rises that many analysts believe are a recipe for unsustainable spending.
An ageing population in a low growth economy with a pension system that pays more year in year out is a machine to destroy the public finances. But try changing it and get not just the emotional backlash of being a “granny basher”, but the political backlash from those with a high propensity to vote – pensioners.
The money saved from ever increasing pension payments is intended in large part for the young – through council house building, apprenticeships, technical education, psychological care etc – all to the benefit of that part of the electorate with a very low propensity to vote.
The long-term economic argument is convincing, but the short-term politics are a nightmare.
Burnham’s approach is to say the politics has to change. Hence his emphasis on collaborative politics, the “politics of place first”, of changing the adversarial culture of Westminster and Whitehall.
The public might like what they hear – the survey data says they hate and are turned off by the endless Westminster bickering, finger pointing and opposition for opposition sake: they want politicians to do something – anything!.
But to get to a more collaborative approach he has to bring a system that is designed for confrontation with him (even the physical layout of the House of Commons – opposing rows of benches, set two sword lengths apart – is designed for confrontation, not compromise, as is the winner-take-all electoral system).
Take an issue on which there should be collaboration and consensus – defence. Long term, national in character, deadly serious if you get it wrong. It should be the common ground from which a more collaborative, consensus driven politics emerges. But it isn’t.
From the resignations of Mr Starmer’s defence secretary and his junior last month to the raucous row over the defence financing package finally published this week.
That plan – seen by some as a hospital pass coming Mr Burnham’s way – calls for a fifteen billion pound increase in defence spending, but doesn’t say where most of the money will actually come from.
That leaves the new prime minster and his cabinet to find £6.8 billion in cuts to the capital budgets for schools, hospitals, roads and energy projects over the next four years.
He also has to come up with an extra five billion in new money from somewhere – probably taxes, but as the UK is suffering the highest tax burden certainly since the end of the Second World War, and possibly ever, that will not be easy.
And all of that to fund an increase in defence spending in preparation for a possible war with Russia – not exactly an easy sell.
Much easier is motivating people around a new big idea. In Mr Burnham’s case, it is the vast expansion of devolution to take power and money away from Westminster/Whitehall and push it to the regions and big cities outside the capital.
All to be driven by “Number 10 north”, a branch office of the prime minster’s office in Manchester.
Again, his LBC interview yielded a little more detail – he has his eye on a location close to Manchester Piccadilly station, which makes sense, and he plans to work from there once a week if he can.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the new building comes with a massive illuminated “10” sign on it, to make it part of the Manchester skyline.
And he said he would do welfare reform in ways that were “different to the way it’s done down here” – that is to say, not crude cuts to rates of welfare that leave struggling people worse off, but channel support into things that yield longer-term savings, like getting youngsters into skilled work – even by giving them free bus travel to get to work or training.
He also claims more council houses will reduce the overall housing bill as well as offer less tangible benefits for the youth around household formation, mental health and wellbeing – issues that could become explosively expensive if not addressed.
So we can see already that behind the bonhomie of Burnhamism lies some tough politics around welfare reform, defence spending, and wholesale political reform.
In action it will require a lot of “political communication” to bring people with him – to gain the popular support the main policies will need if they have any chance of making it out alive from Westminster.
The past week has shown just how carefully crafted his communication strategy is – the speech in Manchester that attracted criticism from journalists because he took no questions afterwards: but the reward for that tactic was reams of analysis of the content of the speech.
And political speeches ought to matter – the content is the content, carefully constructed arguments, well thought out narratives, not top of the head answers on the spot that often become the story instead of the idea the politician wants to focus on.
The same with the LBC interview – a respected but Labour-friendly interviewer, probing but not too deeply, expanding on the Manchester speech, not dealing with the issues of the day (besides there will be plenty of time for that later, assuming Andy Burnham remains unchallenged in the party leadership race).
Above all with Andy Burnham, there is an emphasis on the F-word.
Which is of course “feeling”. As in “I don’t have a fully costed, highly detailed plan, but I do have a feeling that if we do this, things will be better”.
If the electorate “feel” it’s the right approach, they will vote for it.
Feeling or vibe based politics are all the rage these days, right across the Western world.
The ability to conjure up a feel-good vibe around a party or its leader is highly prized.
Such F-word politics are often, on the right hand side of political discourse, bolstered by the phrase “it’s common sense”.
It’s a phrase particularly beloved by the Reform UK party. Most people tend to agree that things they agree with are “just common sense”. So it’s a great (and greatly overused) phrase in popular political discourse.
Not that “common sense” is always a reliable guide through the jungles of policy: from the psychology of Daniel Kahneman to Simon Kuper’s ‘Soccernomics’ there is ample evidence that “common sense” and numerical facts don’t often accord.
Banks make a fine living on this gap. Politicians can get away with it for a much shorter time.
But feelings – empathy, compassion – are important in politics.
Will Burnham’s ‘pub-o-nomics’ work out?
An online article by The Observer’s Political Editor Rachel Sylvester this week charted the influence on Andy Burnham of the late Tessa Jowell, the former Labour grandee and minster in the Blair and Brown administrations.
Jowell hired Burnham as a political researcher in 1994, then encouraged him to stand as a politician, which he did in 2001.
According to Sylvester, David Lammy, current deputy prime minster, and James Purnell, the PR man Burnham has tapped as his No 10 chief of staff, are all proteges of Tessa Jowell.
Wes Streeting is another inspired by Jowell, who was renowned for her emphasis on humanity, empathy, collaboration and optimism in her practice of politics at Westminster – traits most don’t think of as being prized in the palace by the Thames.
Sylvester writes: “At Westminster, intellectual ability is valued above emotional intelligence, and political strategy is prioritised over personal empathy. There have been more PPE than English graduates in Number 10. But voters are increasingly driven by their hearts as well as their heads.” (Burnham studied English; PPE is an Oxford course in Politics, Philosophy and Economics, sometimes derided as “Pretty Poor Education”).
The emotional is important – emotional intelligence vs plain old intelligence is a real thing: Keir Starmer has the latter in buckets, but his want of the former has cost him his kingdom – even to the extent that granting a very late night extension to every pub in England has attracted carping, not cheering.
So will Andy Burnham’s “pub-o-nomics” work out? Who knows.
It helps to establish his credentials as the left of centre leader to take on Nigel Farage, who has turned pints down the pub into a political trademark (much of the Reform UK canvassing and appearances by Mr Farage in Makerfield took place in pubs).
But it sounds like it is worth a try, as anyone who has ever fetched up thirsty in a pub-less village will attest.
It is common sense that the death of pubs, shops, libraries and coffee shops is having a negative impact on life in our towns and villages, and even city centres.
It’s the kind of “feeling” both Mr Farage and Mr Burnham can share – along with the voters they are both competing for.
How to do something about it – for our souls and humanity, as well as mere GDP – is a bigger, more difficult and evidence-light question. But it’s one that becomes ever more pressing.
