Good thread this. The biggest irrevocable mistake the government has made, I think, is not being interested in tax reform in opposition, because really that is something that you need time in office to plan properly with the resources of the state and with a long run-up to the next election.
Can’t help feeling the Blair government was far better prepared for office than Starmer. True, he had a much rosier economy, but also seemed to have stronger sense of purpose. And could get that narrative across.
Not forgetting that this was the first of the ten pledges he made to win the Labour leadership. Without that, he would not now be Prime Minister.
Now if you wanted to do CT reform, you're sort of locked into doing it in 2027, which, uh: yikes!
Everything else, if they sharpen up this or next year* you can see how they can still achieve enough to be re-elected. But a lot of space to make wins on tax reform have been lost I think. *I mean, this if is working so hard it needs to join a trade union.
The ft article is an excellent, I think, compromise proposal for a significant reform that can be done now, and sold, raise cash, is fair, and isn't too hard or too much. (But, the Resolution foundation had papers to do stuff ready in 2023.)
Agree on the FT article - I think the RF stuff is helpful but would always have needed to do a fresh look in office 2024-5.
This is also a more general problem with the government. I really thought the point of Starmer's love of institutional knowledge was that Labour was investing time in talking to wonks and sector professionals to have detailed plans ready to roll out early doors. But firsr year has been review-a-rama
And unlike New Labour's review-a-rama, they aren't uh, you know, about managing towards a specific outcome.
I've even got lost as to which ones are Sir Humphrey style 'reviews' aka stalling for time (Social Care? Pensions?) and which ones are genuinely expected to come up with an actionable solution which the government intend to deliver
It's genuinely astonishing that so little of this seems to have happened - what were they*doing* with their time!
You can't rush writing your enemies list - it ruins the calligraphy.
I think a lot is explained by “for superstitious reasons, McSweeney genuinely genuinely thought they were going to lose until 9:59 on 4 July 2024”
They had a shadow chancellor, Anneliese Dodds, who was having those conversations about root and branch tax reform. Starmer sacked her and installed Rachel Reeves. IMO Dodds would have been a much better chancellor.
In France. it's split in two - taxe d'habitation (paid by residents, being phased out in a lot of cases) and taxe fonciere (paid by the owner) - both of which are based on declared income as well as property value, with abatements for certain groups (elderly, disabled, etc). Seems more sensible...?
I will note the tweet about improvements is flat-out wrong; they aren't assessed by councils and they aren't optional. (They are often subject to a years-long backlog and the VOA is often not informed properly of improvements, to be fair)
Generally speaking councils will submit the relevant report to the VOA if planning permission has been granted; this means that Permitted Declopment, despite usually requiring a re-assessment, often flies under the radar.
I mean, the last GE was an absolute golden time to do it; can just blather about tax reform in a positive way. I mean, maybe a slimmer majority but a vastly more stable way. *sigh*.