Labour's About-Face on Pubs Raises Questions Over Treasury's Policy Process
The swift U-turn by Labour over its stance on business rates for pubs suggests that the government is learning from past mistakes. However, critics argue that the pattern of policy changes continues to point to a Treasury department making decisions without proper consultation or thorough consideration of consequences.
While some Labour MPs are relieved that the decision to revisit business rates was reversed quickly, many others wonder why this had to happen in the first place. A recent change in inheritance tax for farmers and pensioners' winter fuel payments followed months of pressure from campaigners, often involving noisy protests outside parliament.
In contrast, the latest about-face on pubs appears to have been prompted by lobbying efforts by a group of Labour MPs who planned to table an amendment to the post-budget finance bill. This coordinated effort highlights the significance of listening to constituency concerns and engaging with backbenchers who can provide valuable insight into local issues.
The swift reversal of policy also raises questions about the Treasury's approach to decision-making. Critics point out that previous changes, such as scaling back Covid-era business rate discounts, were often made without fully appreciating their consequences. The recent increase in hospitality businesses' rateable values was seen as a surprise by some MPs, who argue that this should have been anticipated.
The repeated pattern of U-turns points to a Treasury department making decisions without sufficient consideration for the impact on various groups. Some backbenchers describe this approach as lacking "political nous" and failing to engage with people who have lived experience of the issues being addressed.
As one MP put it, "When the government thoroughly consults ahead of producing policy, it goes really well... However, whenever it presses ahead with plans without the engagement of people with lived experience, or backbench MPs with their finger on the pulse, it ends up in the wrong place." With this latest U-turn, Labour's opposition party may be able to hold the government to account for its decision-making process and push for greater consultation and consideration.
The swift U-turn by Labour over its stance on business rates for pubs suggests that the government is learning from past mistakes. However, critics argue that the pattern of policy changes continues to point to a Treasury department making decisions without proper consultation or thorough consideration of consequences.
While some Labour MPs are relieved that the decision to revisit business rates was reversed quickly, many others wonder why this had to happen in the first place. A recent change in inheritance tax for farmers and pensioners' winter fuel payments followed months of pressure from campaigners, often involving noisy protests outside parliament.
In contrast, the latest about-face on pubs appears to have been prompted by lobbying efforts by a group of Labour MPs who planned to table an amendment to the post-budget finance bill. This coordinated effort highlights the significance of listening to constituency concerns and engaging with backbenchers who can provide valuable insight into local issues.
The swift reversal of policy also raises questions about the Treasury's approach to decision-making. Critics point out that previous changes, such as scaling back Covid-era business rate discounts, were often made without fully appreciating their consequences. The recent increase in hospitality businesses' rateable values was seen as a surprise by some MPs, who argue that this should have been anticipated.
The repeated pattern of U-turns points to a Treasury department making decisions without sufficient consideration for the impact on various groups. Some backbenchers describe this approach as lacking "political nous" and failing to engage with people who have lived experience of the issues being addressed.
As one MP put it, "When the government thoroughly consults ahead of producing policy, it goes really well... However, whenever it presses ahead with plans without the engagement of people with lived experience, or backbench MPs with their finger on the pulse, it ends up in the wrong place." With this latest U-turn, Labour's opposition party may be able to hold the government to account for its decision-making process and push for greater consultation and consideration.
. I mean, if MPs like those who tabled the amendment were involved in shaping the policy from the start, maybe we wouldn't be seeing U-turns as often. It's all about having those tough conversations and considering different perspectives. And hey, maybe this is a sign that we're moving towards a more collaborative approach to policy-making? 
. It seems like every time something goes awry, it's a Labour thing... but honestly, can't they just talk to the people who get affected? I mean, pubs are struggling because of business rates, and suddenly it gets reversed? 
Sounds like someone was listening to their concerns (or maybe not 
). And what about those farmers and pensioners? It's always something else that needs changing. Can't we just keep things simple for once? Like, I get that Labour's trying to be all inclusive and stuff, but sometimes it feels like they're just following the crowd 
. And what really gets my goat is when politicians say they're listening, but then they just change their minds again 
. It's all so frustrating 
The Treasury department's approach to policy-making is a pressing concern, with each U-turn raising eyebrows about their decision-making process 
. While it's understandable that Labour is learning from past mistakes and revising its stance on business rates for pubs, the pattern of changes continues to highlight a lack of thorough consideration for consequences 
. It's time for the government to engage more effectively with backbenchers and constituents who can offer valuable insights into local issues 
. Perhaps this latest U-turn will prompt a re-examination of the Treasury's approach, leading to more informed policy decisions that benefit everyone 
.
. I mean, pubs r not just for party people, they're community hubs where locals gather 2 socialize & support each other 
. What's the point o' havin' business rates if it just ends up puttin' small businesses at risk? 
. And don't even get me started on the lack of "political nous" 
? It's time for some real change, if you ask me!