Compass thinktank urges Burnham to adopt wealth tax and free social care

As John Healey prepares to deliver the government's first budget this autumn, a coalition of fifteen influential left-leaning thinkers has handed Andy Burnham a detailed menu of how to remake Britain's economic order. The Compass thinktank, a longtime voice in Labour circles, has assembled seventy policy proposals aimed at fulfilling what they see as the prime minister's central promise: ending four decades of neoliberal governance. The report, titled Ending Business as Usual, arrives at a moment when the new administration faces pressure to move quickly—and the authors are explicit about the stakes. "There is no guarantee that he will be given any longer to deliver results than his immediate predecessor," write Michael Jacobs, a former Gordon Brown adviser, and Neal Lawson, Compass director and a close Burnham ally. They praise the prime minister's "invaluable aura of authenticity" while warning that time is finite.

The proposals span taxation, social provision, and the structure of public ownership. On tax, the report calls for a wealth levy on net assets exceeding ten million pounds, which Caitlin Boswell of Tax Justice UK estimates would generate roughly twenty-four billion pounds annually. A second major recommendation would align capital gains tax with income tax rates, raising an additional eleven point three billion pounds yearly—enough, the authors argue, to fund construction of ninety thousand new social homes. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has cautioned that such a move risks reducing overall tax revenue and investment, potentially prompting wealthy individuals to relocate their assets or themselves abroad. The report also targets what it describes as the "regressive, outdated and unfair" council tax and stamp duty, proposing replacement with a proportional property tax. That shift would mean twenty-three percent of households—concentrated in London and the southeast—would pay more.

On social care, the proposals take a different shape. Sebastian Rees of the Institute for Public Policy Research suggests making personal care—washing, dressing, eating—universally free, funded by a one percent income tax surcharge on those over forty, which would raise between eight and nine billion pounds annually. The model mirrors what Scotland already provides. Crucially, the plan would allow care costs to be secured against property and recovered after a home's sale or the individual's death, meaning "housing wealth could contribute to the cost of reform without requiring people to sell their home when they first need care," as Rees frames it. The report also advocates universal free childcare, arguing it would strengthen the economy, support child development, assist families, and advance gender equality.

Energy and infrastructure feature prominently as well. Chris Hayes of Common Wealth calls for government-owned companies to operate energy networks and for the creation of regional energy boards. Holly Brazier Tope, director of politics at Green Alliance, pushes for climate resilience standards applied to critical infrastructure. Other proposals include a fifty-thousand-pound cap on political donations and abolition of the House of Lords, alongside an immediate cost of living package.

Jacobs, now a professor of political economy at the University of Sheffield, frames the moment as one of genuine choice. He warns Burnham against succumbing to what he calls the "moderation and orthodoxy" that he argues hastened the departures of Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves. "There are a wealth of alternatives," Jacobs says. "As Burnham knows, the public is disillusioned with politics and angry with their politicians. He does not have long to prove to voters that, when he says he wants to end business as usual, he means it." The report itself is careful to describe its contents as "a menu of policy options, not a manifesto," leaving the government room to pick and choose. But the underlying argument is unambiguous: the structural causes of inequality—a tax system that favors wealth over work, fragmented social provision, privately owned essential services—can be addressed if there is political will to do so. Whether Burnham has that will, and whether he will exercise it before the window closes, remains the open question.