Over the weekend, Reform UK launched not one but two major policy initiatives. The first was a genuinely impressive piece of work; the second appears woefully ill-considered. Both may yet change the course of British politics.

On the one hand, a proposal to fundamentally restructure Whitehall by abolishing the Cabinet Office and the role of cabinet secretary appears to be a well-thought-out proposal. Replacing this branch of the Civil Service would be an “Office of the Prime Minister” led by a powerful — and politically appointed — chief of staff. In effect, this would depreciate the vast power at the top of the senior Civil Service and put democratically elected leaders in charge of the country.

There is, of course, a great deal more than those bullet points in Reform MP Danny Kruger’s policy paper, and one can quibble over this or that detail. Nevertheless, it does look like the party is committed to a properly planned and long-overdue overhaul of the machinery of central government. That’s something which the Tories should have gotten on with 16 years ago — and Kemi Badenoch ought to shamelessly steal Kruger’s ideas now — but, one way or another, the momentum for change is building.

Of course, this type of policy is more about what you do with power once you’ve won it. Actually winning it is a different matter, requiring promises with more immediate relevance to everyday life and work. Hence, Reform’s other major pledge this weekend, which is to scrap income tax on overtime — the hours worked in addition to the standard 40 hours a week, for overall earnings below £75,000 a year.

The political attraction is immediately clear to see. It’s a proposal made to be sold on the doorsteps of Makerfield, and in the shape of Reform’s by-election candidate, Robert Kenyon, the party has an archetypal working man to sell it. But on closer inspection, the policy looks at least unfinished.

For a start, there’s the blatant unfairness of someone who works part-time being paid less after tax for working the same extra shift as a full-time worker. Then there are all the ways that employers could game the proposed system — for instance, by holding down pay rates in normal hours but paying generous overtime rates. Then there’s all the jobs which don’t pay overtime, but where employees regularly work for more than 40 hours per week. Suddenly, there’s an incentive to switch to a formal overtime system and reap the tax benefits and thus impose a hefty deadweight cost on the public purse. What about the self-employed? There’s no indication that they will be as included as PAYE workers, but even if they were, it’s unclear how self-reported claims of overtime would be verified.

In the short term, there’s a clear appeal to the wider electorate. Especially during a by-election where Reform doesn’t actually have the power to impose this policy, it might be what leads the party to win in Makerfield. Still, the contrast with serious policy regarding the Civil Service is a painful one and illustrates the internal conflicts facing a populist movement on the brink of office. It’s not so much the conflict between the party’s moderate and radical tendencies. Rather, it’s whether Reform is ready for the responsibilities of power or whether it still clings to the comforts of protest. At the moment, it seems like the party is still trying to be all things to all people, but that can only last so long.

---

Peter Franklin is Associate Editor of UnHerd. He was previously a policy advisor and speechwriter on environmental and social issues.

peterfranklin_

---