𝓤𝓷𝓲𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝓝𝓮𝔀𝓼

On my nearest high street, two premises can be found practically opposite one another. One sells thirsty Londoners beer and calls itself a pub, the other sells the same and calls itself a restaurant.

Soon the first shall have a fifth reduced from its business rates – whereas the second may well still be paying the full price.

And in the halls of Number 10, be it North or South, it is unlikely you will be able to find anyone that can explain the difference.

To be fair to our new Prime Minister, Andy Burnham kicked off his reign with considerably more energy than Sir Keir Starmer.

Not that the hurdle he needed to clear was very high, but credit where credit is due. He set about his new role with vigour, scrapping VAT on energy bills and bringing back the Conservative policy of £2 bus fares.

But his latest wheeze has got me thinking. Reducing business rates for pubs, music venues and other hospitality firms will, of course, be popular.

Indeed, it smacks of a premier who understands something his predecessor never did. Most people see their Government not through their ideals, but through the material impact it has on their bills.

In Manchester, the cheap bus fare was among the few things that visibly worked. Residents in his city could feel it in their pocket, and Mr Burnham is entitled to the credit.

The trouble is that everybody is standing just outside the line he has arbitrarily drawn.

Only businesses that meet a social good, or provide benefit to society according to the lofty standards of Andy Burnham, will be entitled to relief.

Defining what makes a socially good business may prove extremely difficult, and is bound to cause a headache for the Treasury when they need to lay that out in full.

No10 is keen to frame this package as a first step. Such a term implies a known destination, and sadly, nobody has been told what it is.

Here, I must be uncharacteristically fair to our former Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, which is not a sentence written often.

Her failing was never any single tax; it was that she taught the country nothing was ever settled. With Ms Reeves at the helm, every measure was viewed as provisional after she U-turned on winter fuel and the benefit cap.

The Budget came to be seen as an opening bid. Over time, business slowed down its investment not simply because taxes were high, but because nobody could say what they would be in a year.

Mr Burnham has inherited that disease and seems to have somehow found a way to worsen it. Ms Reeves at least did her damage in daylight.

She announced her raids and took the consequences, yet Mr Burnham seems happy to announce the giveaways and leaves the takings entirely to the imagination, with everything of substance deferred to a later Budget that no one can predict.

And on the family farm tax, the levy now breaking up holdings worked by the same families for generations, he has said nothing whatsoever.

A man can plan around a bad tax, but he cannot plan around a rumour.

Under Rachel Reeves, you at least knew what had been done to you. Under Mr Burnham, you must wait until September to be told.

In that respect, Mr Burnham is already far worse than Rachel Reeves and Sir Keir, and in the restaurants, in the hotels, and on the farms, that insecurity and lack of openness may prove fatal.