O'Neill resists Burnham role over wealth tax fears

Jim O'Neill, the former Goldman Sachs chief economist and Treasury minister, is holding back from accepting a job in Andy Burnham's government, according to a report in The Times. The hesitation stems from worries about the Prime Minister's interest in wealth taxes and the complications of placing his extensive business interests in a blind trust.

A heavyweight courted

O'Neill, who grew up near Manchester and has long championed regional economic devolution, was seen as a key catch for Burnham's administration. His appointment would have sent a strong signal to the City that the government prioritises fiscal credibility, given his pedigree as a former Goldman Sachs economist and minister under David Cameron.

According to the Times story, O'Neill has been offered significant ministerial and advisory roles, yet no agreement has been reached with No 10. A Whitehall source familiar with the talks said O'Neill had 'concerns about policy disagreements', specifically over potential wealth taxes, which have been advocated by some of Burnham's close allies.

The wealth tax sticking point

The policy disagreement appears to be the central obstacle. O'Neill, known for his market-friendly views, is reportedly uneasy about the government's openness to wealth taxes. While Burnham has not formally committed to such a policy, allies close to him have floated the idea as a way to raise revenue and tackle inequality.

For O'Neill, this is more than an academic dispute. His personal fortune is tied up in a science and technology investment company, along with substantial shareholdings in banks, venture capital firms, and private equity ventures. A wealth tax could directly affect his portfolio, making the political and personal calculus difficult.

Blind trust complications

The practical issue of a blind trust is also said to be giving O'Neill pause. To take a ministerial role, he would need to place his business interests into a blind trust, severing any direct control. The Times reports that he is concerned about the implications of such an arrangement for his ongoing business activities.

These concerns are not trivial. For someone who has built a career at the intersection of finance and public policy, the sacrifice of control over his investments could be a hard pill to swallow. The combination of policy disagreement and personal financial entanglement may be enough to keep him on the sidelines.

What now for Burnham?

Downing Street is likely to face questions about the story at the lobby briefing later, as journalists press for clarity on whether O'Neill will be brought on board. The former economist's decision could set a precedent for other business-friendly figures weighing roles in the government.

If O'Neill ultimately declines, Burnham's administration may need to look elsewhere to bolster its economic credibility. The episode also highlights the tension between the government's progressive instincts on taxation and the need to reassure financial markets. For now, the uncertainty remains, with O'Neill yet to give a definitive answer either way.