Paul Hilder

Political strategist, focus: gamechangers. #CommonSenseRules, networks, geopolitics. Founder of @DatapraxisEU inter alia. #TheGreatHack

[Paul Hilder @paulhilder]

"Go to the people. Live with them. Learn from them. Love them. Start with what they know. Build with what they have. When the work is done, the task accomplished, the people will say, 'We have done this ourselves."

[Mike Butcher (BlueSky/Threads: @mikebutcher) @mikebutcher]

Andy Burnham is preparing a major reset of UK AI policy: less reliance on US Big Tech, more focus on British AI firms / UK tech sovereignty, possible regional control of tech (this is an interesting idea?), dialling down driverless taxis, and scrutiny of foreign-owned data centre build-out. All marking a sharp break with Labour’s current AI strategy which was highly US-friendly.

[Paul Hilder @paulhilder]

An affordable energy guarantee would reduce inflation by almost 0.5% according to JRF - costing just £3 billion but saving £3.9 billion in the same year, through reductions in index-linked government debt costs.

Smart economic policies like this, which benefit struggling families in their daily lives, can help reduce inflation and improve the public finances at the same time, more than paying for themselves. These are win-wins which a strong government should prioritise.

(And if the BoE interest rate drops in line with this fall in inflation, this could yield a few billion more in savings on debt servicing…)

[Joseph Rowntree Foundation @jrf_uk]

🚨 NEW POLLING!

MRP polling out today from @Persuasion_UK finds “economic populist” policies like our proposal for an Affordable Energy Guarantee could win votes from across the political spectrum.

Here's what sets the AEG apart from other options 🔽

https://t.co/9n5iuqkc3a

[Paul Hilder @paulhilder]

Interesting data: voters respond strongly to bold popular moves from Labour on the cost of living. Steve is right that a concerted campaign would have much more impact than incremental technocratic shifts, even if not everything here could be done immediately. Useful findings on attention as well as impact

[Steve Akehurst @SteveAkehurst]

What might a ‘cost of living populism’ look like & how would it do electorally for Labour/Burnham?

Some new research via @PersuasionUK

TL;DR such a platform boosts Lab’s vote share by 15ppt (!) to 34% in our MRP experiment. This & anti-Reform squeeze is prob their best hope 🧵

[Paul Hilder @paulhilder]

Burnham communicates strength, decency, disgust and common sense in a few short words. Good political instinct.

[Andy Burnham @andyburnham]

Like everyone, I want this vile criminal out of the country. Victims must come first.

I will ask the Home and Foreign Secretaries to review all possible options - and they should consider nothing is off the table.

https://t.co/u42MdjrX65

[Paul Hilder @paulhilder]

@lester_hay55123 That Treasury study makes a set of assumptions which do not necessarily apply; and other analyses of the options are worth examining.

[Paul Hilder @paulhilder]

“If the government implemented a “cost of living package” focused on prices, funded by tax rises [on capital gains], it would have a chain of positive effects. It would reduce the cost of living in a direct way the public would notice, and reduce the measured inflation rate, potentially by at least 1 per cent.

“In so doing it would take the pressure off the Bank of England to raise interest rates; thereby lower gilt yields; in turn lower the cost of total government borrowing; therefore free up fiscal space for other spending to improve public services. A win-win-win-win-win-win” — lucid and creative from @michaelujacobs

[The New Statesman @NewStatesman]

Economic commentators have underestimated how much room for manoeuvre Andy Burnham has.

Energy bills are the largest item in the consumer price index amenable to government intervention. But there are others, including bus and rail fares, water bills, and even private sector housing rents, which are also now regulated. The rate of VAT – which could be changed for key products – also affects prices. And although it was widely excoriated for investigating this a few weeks ago, if the government could persuade some supermarkets looking for a customer boost to reduce some basic food prices, that too would help pull the inflation rate down.

Of course, the government would have to pay for any such measures (except on private rents and food). But Burnham has taxation options which would not break his commitment to Labour’s manifesto pledge, which was not to raise income tax rates, National Insurance contributions or VAT. Most economists think that reforming the structure of capital gains tax and equalising its rates with those on income – first done by Margaret Thatcher’s Chancellor Nigel Lawson – would be fiscally sensible. That would bring in around £14bn a year. Further equalising the tax rates on investment income (such as rents) would bring in another £4bn.

✍️ @michaelujacobs https://t.co/hTKEzZ8zLE

[Paul Hilder @paulhilder]

Capabilities that have been sorely lacking in Starmer’s government, and which Burnham must prioritise — good thread from @harry_qp

[Harry Quilter-Pinner @harry_qp]

4/ Notably, the govt have failed to drive as much reform in the state and economy as needed because they:

💡have underinvested in ideas

📖 haven’t told compelling stories

‼️haven’t got a theory of attention

[Paul Hilder @paulhilder]

Almost a third of English water bills goes to paying off massive debts loaded onto water companies by extractive owners — who took this money out in “profit”/dividends after Thatcher’s privatisations, instead of investing it in leaking infrastructure to stop pollution. In non-privatised Scotland, only 10% goes to financing costs.

That’s a giant scandal — it’s common sense for @andyburnham to hit the reboot button on this broken system, which has raised the cost of living.

[Common Wealth @Cmmonwealth]

“So, this system is literally making bills higher for consumers in England and Wales?”

“That’s right. There’s a privatisation premium that ordinary people face ... and that is an upward redistribution of income towards shareholders.”

@DantonsHead on @LBC with @AndrewMarr9 👇

[Paul Hilder @paulhilder]

Keir Starmer promised *Change* in his 2024 campaign. But the promise rang empty. Voters didn’t just want new management; they wanted new direction, real change —and it fast became clear that Starmer and his team lacked any plan to deliver that.

The problem analysis was flawed: they bolted themselves to the broken status quo through self-denying ordinances. Bolder pledges such as building 1.5 million homes lacked follow-through; events and challenges were handled poorly. Starmer promised too little change, and delivered even less. No wonder the change voters who decide elections today ended up disillusioned and scattering within months.

Starmer’s team loved to trumpet the success of their “Change the party to change the country” playbook. But this mantra bore Peter Mandelson’s taint from the start. It soon became clear that they’d prioritised changing the party over changing the country; winning a loveless landslide, instead of a mandate for real change.

Britain and Labour now have a chance to reboot. The Labour leadership is @AndyBurnhamGM’s for the taking. There are three years left of this Parliament: just enough time to kickstart real change. Burnham is signalling he wants to be on the side of the many, not the few, and to start with daily life and the fraying social contract. It will take tough choices, bold ambition, determined follow-through — and teamwork.

[Jessica Elgot @jessicaelgot]

Two very big dates around this period:

- 7th July is Nato summit which Starmer looks likely to attend - and by which we need the Defence Investment Plan

- 22 July is the EU reset summit in Brussels. Will this be PM Andy Burnham?

[Paul Hilder @paulhilder]

Important new @ecfr / Mandate polling ten years after Brexit. Voters want a closer UK-EU relationship - and that includes around half of Labour>Reform defectors. Much to be worked through — but the failing status quo is not an option:

[Mark Leonard @markhleonard]

4/So Brexit has become the new status quo — and voters want to reject it.
75% of Britons now want a closer relationship with the EU. Just 8% want a more distant one.
Even among Leave voters it's 66% to 15%.

[Paul Hilder @paulhilder]

Jim O’Neill, former chair of Goldman Sachs AM and Tory minister, says the government should borrow to invest in things that will grow the economy and more than pay for themselves… let’s hope basic common sense coming from an unimpeachable messenger doesn’t trouble the bond markets too much

[Sam Coates Sky @SamCoatesSky]

EXC

Burnham advisor says government should borrow more

Jim O’Neill tells me as part of Manchesterism film:

“I've tried to encourage this government to be bolder about. I think the second part of the fiscal rule on borrowing to invest I think that could be explored a lot more, and not in a way that freaks out the financial markets.
“I don't think you'd necessarily have to rip up the fiscal rules. I think you just need to be bolder about borrowing to invest. A lot of people right now, given Britain's history for 30 years or more, think any kind of borrowing just means wasted money. But if you borrow for things that have really positive multiplier effects.”

[Paul Hilder @paulhilder]

Voters are more volatile than ever when they see an option of real change

[Paul Hilder @paulhilder]

British voters want real change. @AndyBurnhamGM has won double the support which Labour would have won without him according to pre-campaign models. This is a dramatic result which will have transformational consequences. The tides are shifting fast.

[Paul Hilder @paulhilder]

British voters want real change. @AndyBurnhamGM has won double the support which Labour would have won without him according to pre-campaign models. This is a dramatic result which will have transformational consequences. The tides are shifting fast.

[Britain Elects @BritainElects]

✅ BURNHAM IN

Makerfield by-election result:

LAB: 54.8% (+9.6)
REF: 34.5% (+2.7)
RST: 6.8% (+6.8)
CON: 2.2% (-8.7)
GRN: 0.7% (-3.7)
LDEM: 0.4% (-6.4)

[Paul Hilder @paulhilder]

On Andy Burnham, the sin of “pleasing people”, and the corruption of Blairism, @Johnmcternan is worth reading. Remember also that both Thatcher and Reagan wove together “common sense” and populism with rule-changing ideological agendas…

“The long-term framing of economic issues as a choice between turbocharged late capitalism, which voters have repeatedly rejected (in Brexit, in surging for Corbyn, and in giving consecutive landslides to Boris Johnson and Keir Starmer), or some form of state socialism, obscures real debate and actual choices.

“The state taking control of Thames Water – whose case to the regulator is that it can’t afford to pay fines it has incurred – is simply a way of punishing one, educating a thousand. It would be a crowd pleaser, and it would show actions have consequences.

“The “return of the state” is both the most compelling case for Andy Burnham and the reason journalists still struggle to understand “Burnhamism”. New Labour’s aversion to nationalisation is now as out of date as Old Labour was in the 1990s.

“The records of both Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair show the case for having a clear ideology, and the first two years of this Labour government have tested to destruction the idea that having no guiding political philosophy benefits a government.

“An activist state with the “Green transition” at its heart, with a commitment to municipal enterprise and council-house building, one that shapes the economy rather than blowing in the wind and earns “royalties” from its investments and the IP it supports, is a break with past decades.

“And so it should be – Thatcher and Blair were the bookends of the long late seventies. This is the second quarter of the 21st century – we need to make it new.”

https://t.co/SzYKG3cgEF

[Paul Hilder @paulhilder]

Cutting taxation of workers while increasing tax on wealth and capital is one of the most widely supported positions today. There are plenty of ways to do it, and it can bring together the left and the centre.

[Theo Bertram @theobertram]

There's a lot of substantive policy commitments in @wesstreeting speech today on 'Progressive Capitalism':
- employment taxes go down as wealth taxes go up
- equalise CGT & income tax (with breaks for founders)
- allow Jackdaw & Rosebank
- more radical planning reform

[Paul Hilder @paulhilder]

On Andy Burnham, the sin of “pleasing people”, and the corruption of Blairism, @Johnmcternan is worth reading. Remember also that both Thatcher and Reagan wove together “common sense” and populism with rule-changing ideological agendas…

“The long-term framing of economic issues as a choice between turbocharged late capitalism, which voters have repeatedly rejected (in Brexit, in surging for Corbyn, and in giving consecutive landslides to Boris Johnson and Keir Starmer), or some form of state socialism, obscures real debate and actual choices.

“The state taking control of Thames Water – whose case to the regulator is that it can’t afford to pay fines it has incurred – is simply a way of punishing one, educating a thousand. It would be a crowd pleaser, and it would show actions have consequences.

“The “return of the state” is both the most compelling case for Andy Burnham and the reason journalists still struggle to understand “Burnhamism”. New Labour’s aversion to nationalisation is now as out of date as Old Labour was in the 1990s.

“The records of both Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair show the case for having a clear ideology, and the first two years of this Labour government have tested to destruction the idea that having no guiding political philosophy benefits a government.

“An activist state with the “Green transition” at its heart, with a commitment to municipal enterprise and council-house building, one that shapes the economy rather than blowing in the wind and earns “royalties” from its investments and the IP it supports, is a break with past decades.

“And so it should be – Thatcher and Blair were the bookends of the long late seventies. This is the second quarter of the 21st century – we need to make it new.”

https://t.co/SzYKG3cgEF

[Paul Hilder @paulhilder]

One of the more interesting parts of Al Carns’s resignation letter was his statement that drones worth thousands were beating weapons costing orders of magnitude more…

It’s clear there is a deeper discussion to have about priorities and tough choices and defence procurement waste, not just total amount of defence spending (and there are options to accelerate new capabilities before 2030 without weakening society on the home front, such as defence bonds) https://t.co/6gVXIoNevL

[Paul Hilder @paulhilder]

Jon Ossoff is consistently prosecuting this attack on Trumpian oligarchy and corruption, and explaining how it costs ordinary Americans. A rich seam; and this case is shocking —

[Team Ossoff @TeamOssoff]

Ossoff: Last September, the President of Kazakhstan calls Donald Trump and says he wants to grant tungsten mining rights to an American company. And the very next month, Eric and Don Jr. get a stake in the American company pursuing the mining deal.

Six days later, six days after Prince Eric and Prince Don get their stake, Kazakhstan announces this company will get, “The largest known undeveloped tungsten resource in the world.” A few more weeks go by, and then the U.S. government, run by their father, sets aside 1.6 billion of your tax dollars to fund and finance their mining project. In Kazakhstan.

All this while you pay more for gas, for groceries, for health care, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.