The paradox of radicalism
Senior Researcher
Burning platforms are often used to construct arguments in favour of radicalism: if we don’t fundamentally change how the NHS, tax system or welfare state works, before we know it they’ll be beyond repair. Burning platforms also burn brightest immediately after a crisis: for example, a pandemic, which leaves hospital waiting lists, the tax burden and economic inactivity at record highs.
Despite this, while crises can create moments of political imagination and opportunity, they can just as easily be directed at temporary or sticking plaster solutions that don’t lead to lasting change: the furlough scheme, for example, or certain services that were brought online during COVID. Or they can result in a more fragile and cautious politics. For the current government, operating within tight public finances and wary of local election results, even introducing a tax on milkshakes (trailed by the Treasury) seems “ambitious”.
Yet it’s in these exact moments when radical reform is needed most. Replacing the triple lock on the state pension with a double lock could save billions a year, for example, while abolishing zero and reduced VAT rates could raise billions and be done in a way that benefits poorer households. Reforming the health and care worker visa would mean investing much more in training the domestic labour force.
That is the paradox of radicalism. When times are good and there’s no burning platform, radical reforms aren’t countenanced or seem beyond the pale. And when they’re needed most, in facing national crises and political challenge, governments often lack the headspace or finances to pursue what, at the time, seem like second-order priorities.
Historically, fiscal headroom has been used to increase spending and announce tax cuts. If or when the Treasury finds the economy taking a turn for the better, any headroom should instead be used to transform how the State works — using the extra revenue to smooth out the effect reform has on winners and losers, and improving the long-term outlook for public services and the public finances.
Rewiring the State when times are tough takes political courage, though can be helped by voters understanding the necessity of bold action; reforming it when the sun is shining takes just as much courage, sometimes more.
If the Government achieves the fastest growth in the G7, it should therefore see this as the starting point, not the end goal, of its reform agenda. Overturning the ‘paradox of radicalism’ by spending spare political capital and fiscal headroom on radical policies to improve the UK’s long-term outlook would be the best legacy any government could hope for.