Ryan Shorthouse

Kemi Badenoch is set to announce that the Tories will cut inheritance tax, a levy she has described as ‘immoral’. She’s wrong. In fact, it is cutting inheritance tax that is both economically and morally flawed. That doesn’t mean the concept of inheritance is itself a bad thing: helping your children financially is a natural and admirable motivation. But as the great economist Adam Smith argued, some taxation on inheritance is justifiable: ‘Whatever part of his succession might come to such children would be a real addition to their fortune, and might therefore… be liable to some tax.’ In truth, people can and do give their children financial gifts tax-free at the moment.

Oh for a normal summer – so close now, but Covid remains capricious, a wave across Europe threatening to wash it all away. But just think: for some schoolchildren, and their parents, the normality of the long six-week summer break may not be such an appealing prospect. Sure, the middle-classes are able to pack it with enriching activities – exciting new skills, friendships and memories. But, for kids in families with stretched budgets, it can be isolating, impoverishing, boring. And, as quite a substantial body of evidence now shows, very bad for their emotional and cognitive development – some studies even conclude that the majority of the attainment gap between rich and poor children can be explained by the cumulative impact of successive summer breaks.

Reforms to the funding of higher education over the past decade, although not perfect, have been broadly successful. There’s now record levels of individuals and investment in English universities. Theresa May, though, thought differently. Immediately after the last election, in response to a staggering number of young people turning their back on the Tories, she commissioned the Augar Review, promising major reforms to tuition fees. Much like the emergence of her flagship net migration target, the idea was actually first floated – unofficially – by her then First Secretary of State Damian Green.

The British public are clearly dissatisfied with the way our immigration system currently works. One of the main reasons that motivated people to vote for Brexit in the recent referendum is the hope that Britain could better control immigration by ending the free movement of people from the EU. For years now, immigration has been one of the issues that the public are most concerned about. But there is hope: now, more than ever, the cynicism can be cracked. There is an exciting opportunity, thanks to Brexit and the appointment of a new Cabinet, for the Government to introduce significant reforms to our immigration system to increase public confidence in it. What do the majority of the public want? Sensible stuff, unsurprisingly.

The Chancellor has found himself a treasure chest: childcare. In his quest for full employment, it’s seen as crucial for boosting maternal employment. Helping parents with punishingly high childcare costs appeals to and supports those on modest incomes – the so-called ‘blue-collar’ voters - that Conservatives still need to woo. Nothing quite encapsulates the modernisation of the Tory party as its growing enthusiasm for childcare. The Conservatives no longer want to be seen simply as the flag-waver for a traditional family setup. Instead, they aspire to be the party for working people. No yearning for yesteryear, but enthusiastically supporting two-earner couples that are increasingly the norm, out of choice and necessity.

David Cameron led the Conservatives out of the political wilderness by pursuing the modernisation of the Tory brand, which had become associated with reactionary social attitudes and a dog eat dog economy. In today’s tricky economic climate, the Tories need to focus on challenging perceptions that they are the 'party of the rich', offering policies that ease the cost of living and improve public services for those on low- to middle-incomes.