A Whole Nation Rethink: The Role of the State

Co-founder of Whole Nation Conservatives Miranda Jupp is a longstanding North East Conservative activist and former council candidate. Prior to the 2024 General Election she was Chief of Staff to Sir Simon Clarke.

This week’s headlines warn of yet more financial pain for hardworking people in the upcoming fiscal statement in the Autumn - “Reeves facing huge tax hikes to fill £50 billion black hole”; “Starmer’s pledge on tax thrown into chaos”; “Starmer opens door to pledge-busting income tax rises”. 

With previous tax rises raising less than the Government had hoped, and the exodus of wealth creators gathering pace, it is clear that our current tax and spend model is entirely unsustainable, especially in the face of growing demographic pressures.

However, the backlash against recent attempts at (very modest) spending restraint under Governments of both political colours (e.g. disability benefit reform, removal of universal winter fuel payments for pensioners, attempts to roll back ‘temporary’ extensions to free school meals following the pandemic etc.) has shown the difficulty of shrinking the state through identifying specific cuts. Interest groups and loud celebrity voices are quick to speak up for the supposedly vital importance of various demands on the public purse, and much slower to defend the taxpayer!

An alternative approach may therefore be to ask what the role of government spending should be if we were to start from scratch. This is unquestionably a large undertaking, but a useful one in opposition, and if those on the centre right aspire to a Milei inspired rollback of the frontiers of the state, we will need to make a positive case for a different model. Failure to construct a convincing narrative of a small, strong, enabling state will simply allow our opponents to define our agenda as one of heartless ‘Tory cuts’.

So, what should be the purpose of a modern Whole Nation Conservative state? In simple terms, the primary goal is to allow individuals and communities to flourish. As meritocrats, we want people who work hard and do the right thing to be able to build a good life for themselves and their families, regardless of their background. This core principle informs our assessment of the value of public spending, which must contribute to this ideal if the burden of taxation is to have legitimacy.

The first requirement of building a good life is a safe, secure environment. It is impossible to build a business or raise a family with confidence in the chaos of a disorderly society where there are no consequences for those who break the social contract. People won’t feel ready to invest in the future financially or emotionally if Britain is not able to defend herself from malign international actors. Almost nobody would argue with their taxes being spent in a proportionate manner on defence, border security, policing and the justice system. As always, the state should seek maximum value for money, with absolute spending levels likely to vary over time in response to changes in risk. Spending priorities in this area should be evidence based, and should avoid the temptation to be penny wise but pound foolish: short sighted scrimping on border security, or military equipment is unlikely to pay off in the medium term.

Allowing people to utilise their talents wherever they come from also necessitates a role for the state in education. Coming from a less affluent background should not be a barrier to developing the skills required to secure a better life, and therefore high standards of state education at primary and secondary level are essential. This is an area in which we should undoubtedly be proud of the record of the last Conservative Government. It is of course folly for the state to seek to penalise those who choose to self fund an alternative education pathway: we should welcome the decision to take higher levels of personal responsibility and reduce the demands they place on the public purse.

Higher education poses an interesting question. The current system of taxpayer funded loans being made available for almost all university courses, regardless of whether they provide students with improved prospects does not serve either young people or the taxpayer well. This is a huge topic, worthy of an article of its own, but in broad terms, greater emphasis on courses which meet the demands of employers (for example degree apprenticeships) would be very welcome. Such an ‘earn while you learn’ approach would be most beneficial for students from lower income backgrounds, providing a practical means of reducing financial barriers to fully developing their skills. Courses in ‘mickey mouse’ subjects with poor student outcomes should not be subsidised by taxpayers.

The final key priority for day to day public spending is provision of an effective safety net for those in need of support through no fault of their own. This is a broad category, which includes healthcare and welfare spending. It is important to note that this should be a safety net, not a hammock: it should never be a lifestyle choice for people to freeride on the back of those who work hard and do the right thing. This is just as fundamental to the social contract as those who commit criminal offences being punished for their misdemeanours. Whilst no one should face hardship as a result of misfortune, the state should also where possible create conditions in which people seek to make their own provision for those challenges which can be anticipated, such as old age. Whilst the previous Conservative Government made good progress on increasing the coverage of workplace pensions through the introduction of auto-enrolment,  in the face of deteriorating demographics, we also need to be honest about the role which savings and insurance have to play in providing for social care needs, as well as potentially enhanced healthcare (through a hybrid insurance model as is common in many European countries).

Capital spending is also a big topic worthy of its own future article, though in broad terms should focus on the infrastructure needed for businesses and communities to thrive, such as transport connections and energy infrastructure. We should however explore how the power of private sector investment can be unlocked to deliver great infrastructure at speed and at lower cost to the taxpayer: the French motorway network has improved massively through the use of toll roads and much of the Victorian infrastructure we rely on today was built by entrepreneurs rather than bureaucrats!

There are undoubtedly other elements of public expenditure which are ‘nice to have’, but the reality is that our current productivity and economic growth are not high enough to sustain high levels of discretionary spending. The focus on these second order priorities should likely shift to creating the conditions which allow entrepreneurship, philanthropy and community initiatives to grow into these spaces. This organic, people led approach is after all likely to produce better outcomes that evolve over time than central planning anyway.

The Whole Nation team look forward to digging into some aspects of this outline for reshaping of the state in the coming months, and would also be keen to hear from readers with a view on this topic they would like to share: please do get in touch!