{"text":[[{"start":6.66,"text":"Andy Burnham, Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak have three very different governing styles but they all share an obsession: the cost of living. And there are obvious reasons for it: more than anything else, this issue decides whether the government will be re-elected. But that mutual focus did not, in the end, help Sunak or Starmer — and it might similarly prove actively unhelpful for Burnham."}],[{"start":31.94,"text":"Burnham is a more impressive politician than either of his immediate predecessors. Unlike Starmer, who neither respected nor liked politics as a discipline, Burnham enjoys the cut and thrust, is interested in ideas and provides a clear sense of direction. Unlike Sunak, who often brought to mind David Mellor’s line that making William Hague Tory party leader in 1997 was like “opening a very good wine several years before it should be drunk”, he is politically experienced."}],[{"start":60.06,"text":"The new prime minister has made the cost of living the biggest single focus of his summer tour, with his government freezing costs here or rolling out a free scheme there. The two emblematic policies are the £2 bus fare cap and scrapping VAT on energy bills. But as Sunak himself demonstrated, knowing the importance of this can’t save you if you are in office at a time when global circumstances are sending inflation upwards and people are getting poorer as a result."}],[{"start":87.62,"text":"Just this week, figures from the Office for National Statistics showed that UK inflation rose to 2.9 per cent in July, driven by higher energy costs as a result of the Iran war. Burnham is no more able than his predecessors to ease the global pressures that are making Britons feel poorer."}],[{"start":105.06,"text":"The Iranian regime is not going to see an engaging Instagram video of the new prime minister reminiscing with a former tutor about A-level results day and decide to strike a peace deal on President Donald Trump’s terms. This does not mean Burnham’s presence on social media has no upside. One of the ways he represents an upgrade on his predecessors, in terms of raw politics, is that he is better at sounding like he gets it. This is important for settling his party’s nerves and winning the trust of the voters."}],[{"start":133.02,"text":"Neither Starmer nor Sunak was indifferent to the consequences of inflation, but the former often sounded robotic while the latter resembled an economics seminar. When Burnham talks about “taking a little bit of pressure off”, it is the same argument that Sunak was making when he said that the biggest tax cut of all he could deliver was in reducing inflation. The difference is that the former is easily understood by everyone."}],[{"start":157.1,"text":"What sounding like you “get it” does not do, however, is give the new prime minister any more control over the cost of living than the old one. Chatter about an early election and Burnham seeking his own mandate is never far away, even during the parliamentary recess. But the war in the Middle East, which is driving up the cost of essentials, means that households are in for a painful increase in costs when the energy price cap goes up in the winter."}],[{"start":182.42,"text":"And although most people recognise intellectually that this isn’t Burnham’s fault, the elections of 2024, when incumbents across the world were punished at least in part for Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine, show that government ultimately tends to be blamed regardless. For that reason, whatever private hope some people in Downing Street may have, it is more likely that the next election will happen in 2029 rather than any earlier."}],[{"start":208.3,"text":"One risk of focusing so much on the cost of living, therefore, is simply that Burnham ends up writing cheques he can’t cash. But the other is more fundamental, in that it can result in a government that ends up looking at the wrong things."}],[{"start":221.22,"text":"Sunak made the focus of his premiership delivering cuts to national insurance that cost the Treasury a lot but gave households very little. Starmer opted, essentially, to use government spending as a way to mechanically lower the headline rate of inflation, subsidising everything from energy to soft-play centres. In the end, help with discretionary items makes little difference when global factors are driving up the cost of essentials. While Starmer’s actions do mean that energy bills have gone up by much less than they would otherwise have done, they have still risen significantly."}],[{"start":252.02,"text":"But the other risk of the cost of living obsession is that it distorts the government’s focus. Its economic policy becomes a question of “what can we subsidise or freeze?” rather than “how can we get wealthier?”. It is tempting to use the government’s limited fiscal firepower to offer small sums to help households, but it might be better to use it to adjust the pace at which the government reduces its debt, hopefully securing lower interest rates that way."}],[{"start":276.74,"text":"Ultimately the reason why the cost of living is getting higher and more painful for most of us is that, as a result of Putin and Trump’s wars of choice, we are all now poorer. The price signal is telling us something very important, too, about the costs of energy and of burdens on business. A government that becomes focused on the cost of living may, ironically, find itself distracted from the measures most likely to bring real relief for households in the long run."}],[{"start":304.66,"text":""}]],"url":"https://audio.ftcn.net.cn/album/a_1787300304_5337.mp3"}