Is it politically possible to take preventative action to put our public finances on a sustainable footing before a crisis hits? Or will it take a crisis before the public (and, therefore, our politicians) recognise what needs to be done?
The awkward truth is that while we talk about reducing spending and lowering taxes, the public is reluctant to give up many of the things the money goes on. We’ve seen this repeated time and time again.
There is a lesson in the winter-fuel fiasco for opposition parties (and Labour leadership contenders). If you say you’re going to take tough decisions, you have to mean it.
Tory MPs, staff and its younger activists are starting to acknowledge that the triple lock is unsustainable, and is now up for grabs.
By three to one, our panel took the view that “Britain cannot spend enough on defence without cutting public services or welfare”. But what would they cut?
It demands a suitably radical agenda to match it. If one doesn’t materialise, the posture will start to look ridiculous.
Accepting this is the difference between paying lip-service to the principle of lower taxation and actually holding it.
We do need a system which gives a fairer deal for younger people, but this policy is simply going to inflict hardship on vulnerable older people without making anyone better off.
The first thing Labour has done for the majority of retired people is to reduce their income by £200 – adding to their hardship and increasing the pressure on the NHS.
Notably, those who say Rishi Sunak makes them less inclined to vote Conservative are most likely to be found in the less prosperous, formerly Conservative-leaning bottom right of our political map.
“We believe that cutting taxes on young people and expecting some community service from people when they start collecting their pension is a fair deal across the generations.” If only.
The Rooker-Wise Amendment, thanks to the canny support of Nigel Lawson, was “perhaps the most important principle informing our tax system” for over 40 years. Sunak scrapped it, and has now revived it solely for Britain’s wealthiest age cohort.
MPs habitually underestimate the ability of the electorate to understand complex issues. But the people I speak to on the doorstep are generally well-informed, rational, and understand the trade-offs.
It will take more than a few gimmicks or tinkering with National Insurance to win back the trust of working-age voters and reverse the current, existentially-dangerous trend.
If government invested £9,500 for every child born in the United Kingdom, it would over their lifetime accrue enough capital to sustain their retirement – all whilst investing in British infrastructure.