James Hodgkinson is a Research Associate at the Adam Smith Institute. He currently serves as a Parish Councillor, and Vice Chairman of the KALC Canterbury Area Committee.
If you talk to ordinary voters, you’ll find that many don’t really care about the size of the national debt. On the doorsteps of Britain, wonky concepts like gilt yields and the state of the bond markets rarely dominate the political discourse. But that does not mean sound economic policy has to be brushed aside and forgotten about.
In truth, much of the electorate already prefer small-state solutions. 45 per cent of voters are now in favour of cuts to their personal tax bill, even if it means a fall in public spending. In just the last five months, that figure has increased by 9 per cent.
That should come as no surprise. After runaway spending throughout the last two decades, the situation has hit breaking point. Our government was faced with two clear choices: cut spending, or hike taxes on Britain’s already squeezed middle-income earners. Sadly, there’s no reward for guessing which option they chose.
The punitive decision to impose VAT on private schools was a clear indication of the direction of travel. The 20 per cent levy functioned as a tax on one thing: ambition. Over 100 independent schools were forced to close, disrupting the education of thousands of pupils across the country. And while the wealthiest parents could afford to shoulder the burden, this was not the case for everyone.
For the many aspirational families who made serious sacrifices to pay the fees in the first place, the additional charge was a step too far. As a policy, it was fundamentally regressive, and any government that chooses to arbitrate its political grudges against children is devoid of moral fibre.
Of course, the recent attacks on aspiration go far beyond education. Constrained by a manifesto commitment to not raise taxes on ‘working people’, HMRC turned its attention to employers. The rate of employer National Insurance increased sharply, while the minimum threshold at which it is charged was cut in half.
The result? Fewer jobs, lower growth, and less incentive to invest. It hardly seems the sort of policy to move the economic dial from lethargy to boom.
Even today, attitudes to success continue to harden. Under new government plans, HMRC agents will be given fresh powers to demand access to family homes to assess their values for the new ‘Mansion Tax’. It seems that while an Englishman’s home may be his castle, the drawbridge must always be down for the taxman.
But against this bleak backdrop, it appears that public opinion may have started to shift. New polling from Adam Smith Insights shows that seven in ten Brits believe the wealthy pay their fair share in tax. And support for taxes on everyday folk falls even lower. Two-thirds of Brits oppose the imposition of inheritance tax on family homes, while 81 per cent believe people should be able to keep more of what they earn to pass down to future generations.
That shift in the public mood presents the Opposition with something of an ‘open goal’. Through advocating for the positions the public is warming to — lower taxes, smaller-state governance, and genuine economic deregulation — the Conservatives have the opportunity to reclaim their position as the party of sound economics.
Kemi Badenoch’s Shadow Cabinet reshuffle was a positive first step. Andrew Griffith’s appointment brings real business experience, while Claire Coutinho’s role focusing on cutting costs for households will be vital for ensuring policy proposals deliver tangible benefits for families across the country.
But reshuffles, rhetoric, and snappy soundbites alone will not be enough. To take the fight to Labour, Badenoch and her top team must wholeheartedly embrace a political philosophy which encompasses individual liberty, fiscal responsibility, and self-reliance.
Only by offering a radical and ambitious alternative that stands squarely on the side of aspirational households can the Conservatives contemplate converting a shift in the public mood into a genuine political comeback.
James Hodgkinson is a Research Associate at the Adam Smith Institute. He currently serves as a Parish Councillor, and Vice Chairman of the KALC Canterbury Area Committee.
If you talk to ordinary voters, you’ll find that many don’t really care about the size of the national debt. On the doorsteps of Britain, wonky concepts like gilt yields and the state of the bond markets rarely dominate the political discourse. But that does not mean sound economic policy has to be brushed aside and forgotten about.
In truth, much of the electorate already prefer small-state solutions. 45 per cent of voters are now in favour of cuts to their personal tax bill, even if it means a fall in public spending. In just the last five months, that figure has increased by 9 per cent.
That should come as no surprise. After runaway spending throughout the last two decades, the situation has hit breaking point. Our government was faced with two clear choices: cut spending, or hike taxes on Britain’s already squeezed middle-income earners. Sadly, there’s no reward for guessing which option they chose.
The punitive decision to impose VAT on private schools was a clear indication of the direction of travel. The 20 per cent levy functioned as a tax on one thing: ambition. Over 100 independent schools were forced to close, disrupting the education of thousands of pupils across the country. And while the wealthiest parents could afford to shoulder the burden, this was not the case for everyone.
For the many aspirational families who made serious sacrifices to pay the fees in the first place, the additional charge was a step too far. As a policy, it was fundamentally regressive, and any government that chooses to arbitrate its political grudges against children is devoid of moral fibre.
Of course, the recent attacks on aspiration go far beyond education. Constrained by a manifesto commitment to not raise taxes on ‘working people’, HMRC turned its attention to employers. The rate of employer National Insurance increased sharply, while the minimum threshold at which it is charged was cut in half.
The result? Fewer jobs, lower growth, and less incentive to invest. It hardly seems the sort of policy to move the economic dial from lethargy to boom.
Even today, attitudes to success continue to harden. Under new government plans, HMRC agents will be given fresh powers to demand access to family homes to assess their values for the new ‘Mansion Tax’. It seems that while an Englishman’s home may be his castle, the drawbridge must always be down for the taxman.
But against this bleak backdrop, it appears that public opinion may have started to shift. New polling from Adam Smith Insights shows that seven in ten Brits believe the wealthy pay their fair share in tax. And support for taxes on everyday folk falls even lower. Two-thirds of Brits oppose the imposition of inheritance tax on family homes, while 81 per cent believe people should be able to keep more of what they earn to pass down to future generations.
That shift in the public mood presents the Opposition with something of an ‘open goal’. Through advocating for the positions the public is warming to — lower taxes, smaller-state governance, and genuine economic deregulation — the Conservatives have the opportunity to reclaim their position as the party of sound economics.
Kemi Badenoch’s Shadow Cabinet reshuffle was a positive first step. Andrew Griffith’s appointment brings real business experience, while Claire Coutinho’s role focusing on cutting costs for households will be vital for ensuring policy proposals deliver tangible benefits for families across the country.
But reshuffles, rhetoric, and snappy soundbites alone will not be enough. To take the fight to Labour, Badenoch and her top team must wholeheartedly embrace a political philosophy which encompasses individual liberty, fiscal responsibility, and self-reliance.
Only by offering a radical and ambitious alternative that stands squarely on the side of aspirational households can the Conservatives contemplate converting a shift in the public mood into a genuine political comeback.