I’m giving thousands of pubs, clubs and music venues a 20% cut in business rates. I won’t stand by while these cherished local spaces disappear, replaced by boarded-up windows and ‘For Sale’ signs. They’re the heart of our communities and it’s time we backed them.

Pubs deserve our backing. I’m not sure some of @JohnHealey_MP's choices here do though... Our 20% cut in business rates will benefit thousands of pubs, clubs and music venues across the country.

Today marked one month since I became Prime Minister. Cutting tax on electricity bills. Capping bus fares at £2 in England. Making subscriptions easier to cancel. Cracking down on fake discounts. Giving 14-year-olds early access to technical education. Opening 159 new mental health centres. Investing to get all rough sleepers off the street this winter. Supporting farmers affected by the drought. Cutting business rates for pubs, clubs, and music venues. Shutting down 13 more asylum hotels. Giving mayors a share of income tax. Extending the 16-17 Saver Railcard. Bringing buses in the West Midlands under public control. Fast-tracking new homes near train stations. Cleaning up illegal waste dumps. Giving communities and councils more power over what opens on their high street. Opening No10 North. Giving disabled people 24/7 free bus travel. Delivering the biggest transfer of power, funding and responsibility from Westminster in a generation. It's a start, but I’m not complacent. I know that people need more and I promise that I will do everything I can to make yours and your family’s lives better. We're doing things differently to give people more breathing space and bring back hope. Here’s to the next month.

The Times's weekend read: * The Labour leadership contest has already begun. In No 10 Starmer is fighting for his political life, putting huge pressure on teh system to bolster his Premiership in face of existential threat posed by Andy Burnham * Expect a frenzy of activity in coming weeks - the defence investment plan, social media restrictions for under 16s, the Brexit reset. Announcements bogged down in months of bitter internal rows will finally come into public view * All the announcements are coming before or shortly after June 18th, the date of the Makerfield by-election. Starmer is trying to send a message to Labour MPs that he can deliver * He isn't the only one. Burnham has began issuing his own national leadership pledges - starting with a £300million cut in business rates for pubs and small businesses * His press release directly attacked Starmer and Reeves, accusing the government of 'undervaluing' their importance to local communities. This is a *Labour* candidate directly criticising a *Labour* government * The lines between the Labour Party and Burnham's campaign are increasingly blurred. Team Burnham now has a lot of the party machinery on his side - press officers, officials etc - and also has most of the cabinet out knocking doors in Makerfield. Power is already moving * Starmer thinks he can fight Burnham, but his allies are unconvinced. One said that he thinks Burnham has behaved 'appallingly'. 'His view is why should he make it easy for him?' * But there is an acknowledgement that Starmer is on borrowed time. That it is a case of when, not if he goes * There are divides in Team Burnham over when he should amke a move if he wins Makerfield. The 'go-now' camp say he must seize the opportunity or it could slip through his hands, using the momentum of the by-election to act decisively * But others think this could be disastrous - that he needs time to build up a proper plan for government and No 10. That if he doesn't he risks repeating Starmer's mistakes all over again * Then there's what's being billed as the 'battle for the soul of Burnham'. There are those on the left - Louise Haigh, Miatta Fahbulleh and others - who favour a radical break from Starmer. Then there are the centrists - Josh Simons, Jim O'Neill - are are said to be emphasising the importance of fiscal credibility. It is potentially a v unwieldy coalition

I want devolution to be a success. It would addresses many of the legitimacy challenges which central government faces, and done well would create much better incentives for growth. But I see four big risks which devolution advocates need to address: 1.Devolution expands the welfare state Pushing power down to regional government creates the scope for a fresh start on many problems, particularly incentives for economic growth. If local areas can see the benefits of infrastructure being built, because their government can retain some of those benefits locally, it will go a long way to creating goodwill for data centres, nuclear facilities and FDI. But they’re also a chance to start again on social policy. If areas have to pay for the constant expansion of the welfare state out of their own pockets, then they might think twice about it. My worry though is that if we design the system badly then it’ll just recreate all the worst tendencies of the centralised welfare state. Particularly if fiscal devolution isn’t set up so areas carry the consequences of financial mismanagement. Westminster has to be prepared to let parts of local government fail badly, and go through significant fiscal contractions, or the system will just create endless moral hazard. And in areas where that’s unrealistic, we shouldn’t be pursuing devolution. For example, funding social care locally out of council budgets has been a huge political failure, and there’s a strong consensus that it shouldn’t be the job of local government to finance care spending. Need is distributed relatively randomly throughout society, and it’s an area where the public have a strong sense that fairness is important. Because of this, my colleagues at Re:State have come up with an excellent alternative model for a prefunded social insurance system for social care, pooling risk at a national level. Social care is an example of where a local approach has failed, there are similar areas we should avoid devolving so we don’t just shifting a large welfare state to local areas to continue funding. 2.Devolution gets confused with redistribution. I expect that governments in the foreseeable future will want to do much more financial redistribution away from London to the regions. Not just to get “good growth in every postcode”, but to try to equalise or ‘level up’ economic opportunity across the regions in part by increasing transfers from London’s economy. Even doing this in isolation would be a mistake - the economy already has massive inter-regional transfers, though most are done through the NHS, welfare system and other public services rather than grants to local government. But even there, there is significant redistribution. Continuing the trend of taxing the South East more to pay for the rest of the country will deepen the divide politically. And it risks killing the growth engine of London so that it can no longer support the rest of the country even at current levels - London isn’t competing with Manchester and Glasgow for investment, but with Paris, New York and Tokyo - if it loses that race then we all lose out. But if more inter-regional redistribution is done in conjunction with a big devolution programme, then devolution will end up tarred with the same brush, and it will feel like ‘devolution for them but not for us’. 3.Devolution gets caught up in national efforts to improve local government Andy Burnham’s leadership has started with lots of moves to improve local government, but driven by Westminster. Policies like unilaterally capping bus fares, cutting business rates for some businesses, and committing to act on garish shop signage are all decisions about issues which should be made locally, not in Westminster. Burnham can’t go from being the Mayor of Manchester to the Mayor of Great Britain, he has to let other areas make decisions for themselves. That isn’t just a point about local legitimacy, though I think that’s does play a role. On lots of issues, we’ll make better decisions locally than nationally. Take Canada’s federal Housing Design Catalogue - the standardised housing designs made to smooth planning decisions at a national level are unattractive because they’re a compromise trying to have as wide an appeal as possible. If you make decisions about the built environment locally, they’re likely to be more tailored and thoughtful. 4.Devolution loses a cross-party consensus If some combination of issues 1-3 come about, many people may feel devolution has been a failed policy. But even if that doesn’t happen, and the outcomes are mixed, any of these scenarios and more seem likely to see the breakdown of the cross party consensus in favour of devolution. An increasingly patchy landscape of regions with strategic authorities and regions without them will make governance pretty tricky. Lots of areas don’t want a mayor. On balance I think they should all want one, and it’s worth trying to standardise the regional tier in the medium term. But imposing it against people’s will, particularly if it also seems to come with big costs, will likely mean the end of the strong cross-party consensus in favour of devolution that we’ve enjoyed for well over a decade. You can already see challenges between national and regional leaders that we didn’t used to have, for example the governments insistence that the retained income tax model for fiscal devolution can’t be used by conservative and reform mayors to give local rebates. More of these breakdowns along political lines seem likely in the future.