Burnham’s Real Test Is Tackling Cost Of Living, Explains Pollster

[00:00:00]Let's get back to British politics and Andy Burnham's mission to inject some positivity into the country's veins. The polls suggest the cost of living is the public's number one concern. And Andy Bernham's speedy decision to scrap VAT on energy bills from October suggests that he gets it. But let's dig deeper into the national mood and the challenge it presents for the new prime minister with Luis Ogaran, senior research associate at the more in common polling organization. Uh Lewis, welcome to the times at one. Uh I guess this is not really a big surprise that your polling and survey work is showing that uh voters are you know absolutely front and center concerned with the cost of living. It's kind of predictable, isn't it?

[00:00:50]Good afternoon.

[00:00:50]>> Yeah, [clears throat] absolutely. I mean, this isn't a surprise. I think uh we've been tracking public opinion for several years now, [snorts] and since the term cost of living crisis sort of vented our vocabulary back in 2022, it's always been top of the public's list of priorities. About seven in 10 people say that it's the number one issue uh facing the country at the moment. And as Andy Bernham uh takes over, what we see is that it's the one issue where people want to see the most immediate action uh to to bring down energy bills, for example, and to really show that he gets it on the cost of living crisis. So it it perhaps unsurprising that Andy Bernham's first major policy was one help designed to help people with energy bills.

[00:01:31]>> Yeah. I mean, h how impatient are people for more help quickly?

[00:01:36]So we asked people uh how long do you give uh the government under Andy Bernham to deliver on a range of different issues and basically within one year they want to see real progress on issues like uh NHS wa waiting times uh channel crossings net migration um but the issue where they kind of want to see the most urgent progress is on the cost of living. Most plurality of people say that they want to see progress on the cost of living crisis within 6 months. Um, and actually it's the voters that Labour have lost since the general election. Uh, and that's whether they went to the Green Party or have moved to Reform UK that want to see the most immediate action to tackle this.

[00:02:16]>> That that that is interesting. And would you say from what you're hearing from voters around the country that this is absolutely the key to political success delivering on these cost of living concerns because you know there parties are are spending a lot of time effort and resource on other policy positions particularly I'm thinking of you know on the right of politics a big focus on immigration and stopping the boat and all of that but you seem to be suggesting that it always comes comes back to the cost of living as the key to getting a political sort of jump.

[00:02:53]>> I think so. And that's not to negate how important issues like immigration are, but I think what's so critical about the cost of living is that it's a unifying issue. It's something that everybody experiences and regardless of your politics, everybody thinks it's important. So, for example, there are some issues like uh climate which are really important to voters on the left, but not at all to voters uh who might be voting for reform UK. Equally, migration is really important to voters on the right, uh, but less so to voters on the left. Cost of living actually across income levels, across demographic groups and voter groups, it is kind of the the number one. And part of that I I think the public frustration around this issue is while it's been the top issue for the public uh for several years now often they felt they voters feel that governments haven't taken [clears throat] it as seriously that it hasn't been top of uh the government's to-do list to get this under control. So I think it really makes sense from a public opinion perspective to go hard on the cost of living straight out of the gate to show that the government gets it and is doing everything that it can. Is it too is it too early to uh assess the impact of uh Star's departure and Bernham's arrival on the public mood?

[00:04:07]I I think we can compare uh Andy Bernham's personal popularity with that of Kharma and it's kind of like day and night really. Um Andy Bernham has a positive net approval rating. Um that means voters are slightly more likely to have a positive view of him than a negative one. That doesn't sound very impressive, but it's actually quite rare in politics at the moment. Whereas Karma's uh net approval rating when he um in his last week uh in office was about where Rashi Sununat was when he lost the 2024 general election. So, we've seen a huge uh boost in approval for the prime minister. Um it's perhaps too early to see whether uh that's translating directly into support for the Labour Party. um our hypothetical polling where we asked people if there was an election tomorrow uh and and this was the prime minister, how would you vote? Uh when we did that last week, we found that um it basically closes reform UK's lead in the polls. But it'll be interesting to see now that that's a reality and not a hypothetical whether this boosts support.

[00:05:09]>> Indeed, it will and we will come back to you to assess how it moves over the coming days and weeks. Louis O'iran from More in Common, thank you very much indeed. Former defense secretary John Healey was Andy Bernham's surprise pick for chancellor. Nearly six weeks ago, Healey resigned over the Starmmer government's failure to commit to spending 3% of GDP on defense by 2030.

[00:05:31]Now with a budget only months away, he as chancellor has to find4.7 billion pounds to reach the 2.7% of GDP target on defense spending for next year. So John Healey as chancellor will have now have to deliver what the same John Healey as defense secretary said the Treasury was signally failing to do namely ensure Britain's security. It's a fascinating situation to discuss it. I'm joined by former Labour defense secretary Jeff Hoon. But Jeff Hoon if I may I want to start actually by asking you about the appointment of Wes Streeting to John Healey's old job of defense secretary. West Streeting has no experience of defense and security. Does it strike you as a as a wise choice?

[00:06:20]>> Well, good afternoon first of all. Um, it does because there's no doubt that Wes is a big hitter. He's one of the senior members of this government as he was in K Star's government and I think he will bring a great deal of knowledge, experience and significant communication skills to the position. So, I think it's a very good call.

[00:06:42]>> Well, many uh former military uh senior figures seem to disagree with you. I'm looking at a quote here from Lord Danet, Richard Dan, whom I suspect you know well. He was former chief of the general staff. He has said that he is quote disappointed at the appointment of Streeting. uh and he pointed out that compared with Swinging's lack of experience, Dan Jarvis, who was appointed and briefly held the job at the end of the Kstarma government, Dan Jarvis was a former serving soldier and he believes that does make a difference.

[00:07:14]>> I think it does make a difference, but I don't think it's a conclusive difference. I'm sure that he could have said some of the same things about me before I began my six years in the Ministry of Defense. These days relatively few politicians unlike in previous generations have experience of the military. It is valuable to have had that experience. I I accept that argument completely. But at the same time I think having someone of West Streeting's caliber, stature and experience will be good for the ministry of defense and that I think is most important aspect. So let's turn to John Healey now because as I said at the beginning of our conversation, John Healey pinned his colors to the mast very very clearly before he resigned from the Starmmer government. He said Kia Starmmer's and the Treasury's plan for rebuilding the military was simply not good enough. They weren't prepared to spend enough money and they were jeopardizing Britain's security.

[00:08:12]Politically speaking, is it now absolutely cast iron that John Healey will deliver the money that he has always said the British military needs to become newly credible?

[00:08:27]>> Well, I would hope so because he's made his case very clearly. It will be difficult for him to walk back from the comments he made in his resignation speech. I suspect that there is quiet happiness in the Ministry of Defense where there is always difficulty with the Treasury over spending year in year out. I suspect every defense secretary of any political party has had the same difficulties with the Treasury over a long time.

[00:08:55]>> Yeah, but there there isn't just a sort of small problem of money. There's a massive problem of money. If John Healey, as he was saying as defense secretary, truly believes that Britain must get to 3% of GDP spent on defense by 2030. That that is a commitment that involves massive massive political decisions, reprioritization, and to spend that level of money there, Andy Bernham is going to have to withdraw spending from elsewhere or raise taxes.

[00:09:28]Well, I don't think we should get into the argument about how the money will be found.

[00:09:34]>> Why not?

[00:09:35]>> Well, >> because otherwise it's not credible.

[00:09:37]>> Well, it is because I suspect one of the early decisions that the new government will take will be a further comprehensive spending review looking at the ways in which money is spent and how money can be raised right across all of the departments. Otherwise, Stephen, there's a temptation to speculate about what might happen and to look at this in the worst possible light. That is a commitment that the government has made and part of what John Healey said in his resignation speech was that he was resigning because he didn't feel that we were on a path there. He wasn't necessarily saying that we had got to make it this year or next year. So there is still time to find that money. I think the issue is how that money will be found and how it will be raised.

[00:10:29]>> You're dead. You're you're dead right, Jeff. And that is the issue. We know that John Healey was looking with quote unquote interest at the idea of defense bonds when he was defense secretary. But it seems to me that defense bonds is just a fancy way of dressing up more government borrowing. It it fundamentally is just increasing the debt in a slightly different way. You're a former defense secretary. Do you think there is any mileage in this idea of something special for uh rebuilding the military called defense bonds?

[00:11:00]>> Well, I think every option has to be looked at. As a former defense secretary, I would be delighted for anyone to come to me and say this is a way of raising more money. I I accept that so far at any rate the question of defense bonds has been seen in the way that you rightly describe as simply another form of borrowing that would count against uh the borrowing totals that the government has to deal with.

[00:11:23]But if there is a way of securing defense bonds without that problem >> well it's a huge if. I mean don't just posit the if. Tell me if you believe with your experience there is a way because I can't see it. My experience isn't relevant to this because wasn't an issue for me at the time and although I've looked at it, I can't say that I'm an expert on the financial issues involved. Clearly, it would be beneficial to defense for any extra source of money to be made available.

[00:11:53]And if this can be done within the government's overall uh spending totals and within the amount that is reasonable to borrow in the circumstances, then yes, it's something that should be looked at. Let let me ask you a a wider broader question. Conflict is still roing the Middle East. 10 nights of US strikes on Iran we've just seen and that war continues if we call it a war or not. Uh the eastern flank of Europe is still of course preoccupied with Russia's war on Ukraine and all the ramifications that has. Andy Burnham clearly has the desire to be a much more domestic focused prime minister than Kia Starmmer was. Do you think that is actually possible in the current climate?

[00:12:43]>> Well, he'll have to do both, won't he?

[00:12:44]And uh there is little doubt that there is a huge demand in the country for a prime minister to focus on the cost of living and basic services in health and education and welfare. But at the same time as you rightly observe uh we are caught up in events. Uh Harold McMillan's observation remains true in the 21st century as it was in the 20th century and we have to deal with those events and we have as a major player in NATO the United Nations. We have to be a country that steps up and takes action.

[00:13:21]One of the great strengths of Karma of course was that he did so in relation to Ukraine and everyone rightly has given him proper credit for that. But at the same time and well let me just ask you as a last question. Do you think Andy Bernham will in terms of Ukraine for example be as four square committed as Kia Starama was?

[00:13:42]>> I'm sure he will be. I I have no doubt about that. I I I wor with Andy Mhamm in cabinet for a few years uh at the end of the Gordon Brown administration and I'm confident that he has a very great commitment to the interests of this country both domestically and internationally.

[00:14:01]>> All right. Well, Jeff Hoon, former Labor Defense Secretary, thank you very much for joining us on [snorts] the Times at 1.