logo
Labour MPs tell Keir Starmer to cut Net Zero levies on industry or risk killing off Brit manufacturing jobs

Labour MPs tell Keir Starmer to cut Net Zero levies on industry or risk killing off Brit manufacturing jobs

The Suna day ago
SIR Keir Starmer must cut Net Zero levies on industry or risk killing off manufacturing jobs for good, Labour MPs have warned.
They say oil and gas producers in particular are at risk of shutting up shop and being moved abroad because of the barmy rules.
1
The report is a major challenge to the PM's hugely controversial Net Zero policies.
British factories are slapped with massive charges for every tonne of carbon they produce.
But other big countries - including China and the US - have far lower levies or none at all.
In a new hard-hitting report, the Commission for Carbon Competitiveness calls for these levies to be urgently eased to save jobs.
Labour MP Henry Tufnell, chairman of the commission, said: 'We cannot afford to sleepwalk into a future where the UK achieves its climate goals through deindustrialisation, putting vital jobs at risk.
"Britain needs to be able to compete with the big industrial powers, like China and the United States.
'To do that we need a level playing field. That is what this report is calling for.'
They want UK companies to get free credits to produce carbon under the UK's Emissions Trading Scheme, and ignore the threat of legal action by the World Trade Organisation.
Red Wall Labour MP for Grimsby Melanie Onn also backed the report.
It comes after the OBR warned that the government's policy of hitting Net Zero by 2050 will cost an eye-watering £803 billion over the next 25 years.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Labour MPs tell Rachel Reeves: Don't rely so much on OBR forecasts
Labour MPs tell Rachel Reeves: Don't rely so much on OBR forecasts

Times

time28 minutes ago

  • Times

Labour MPs tell Rachel Reeves: Don't rely so much on OBR forecasts

Rachel Reeves should stop relying so heavily on the fiscal watchdog because its forecasts are not a 'crystal ball', a group of Labour MPs has said. The chancellor is under pressure to reduce the influence of forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) over tax and spend decisions. The Red Wall caucus of more than 40 Labour MPs has backed calls to 'adjust the way we report and respond to forecasts' and to 'stop treating single-point estimates as gospel'. The MPs also backed calls to cut the forecasts produced by the OBR from two to one a year. • Cabinet minister refuses to rule out wealth taxes in budget Andy MacNae, MP for Rossendale & Darwen in Lancashire, said the OBR provided only a 'rough guide' as to where the economy might be in four years. 'But the OBR has never claimed to have a crystal ball and we shouldn't treat it as if it does,' he said. MacNae pointed to a report from the forecaster in 2023 in which it admitted its 'central forecast' number 'has virtually no chance of being correct'. In March the OBR downgraded the economic effect of Labour's welfare plans before the spring statement, leading to last-minute cuts to benefits totalling £500 million. The following month Sir Keir Starmer criticised the watchdog for the assessment, saying he 'personally struggles' with the way it drew up its forecasts. The prime minister later dropped the reforms to disability benefits after a backbench rebellion. Reeves has indicated that she would consider adopting a different approach to the OBR. This month she said she was 'looking at how the OBR works', adding: 'The International Monetary Fund has made some recommendations about how to deliver better fiscal policymaking and obviously I take those seriously.' In May the IMF said the chancellor should move down to one OBR estimate each year, which it said would prevent the government from responding to short-term market demands for more cuts or tax rises. According to the OBR in March, Reeves recorded £9.9 billion in 'fiscal headroom' — the flexibility in a government's financial plans. The IMF said moving away from the twice-yearly assessment would 'de-emphasise' the importance of the headroom in policymaking, as well as bring the UK into line with other countries. Jo White, the MP for Bassetlaw, Nottinghamshire, who chairs the Red Wall caucus, said: 'To deliver on national renewal we need policy and fiscal stability and the OBR has a vitally important role to play in that. 'Fine-tuning policy to fit a central estimate that we know will be inaccurate is not the way to do that. To recognise the value of the OBR, we must acknowledge their limitations.' Labour strengthened the OBR's powers in the Budget Responsibility Act, one of the first laws passed after the election. This was designed to reassure the markets that Labour would not act like Liz Truss, the former prime minister who bypassed the OBR when she and Kwasi Kwarteng, her chancellor, held a mini-budget. Any softened approach to the watchdog risks spooking the markets and making government borrowing more expensive, one government source said. However, others close to Reeves believe tweaks to the OBR's treatment would be accepted by the markets as necessary.

ZF's Modular EV Range‑Extender Set to Launch in 2026
ZF's Modular EV Range‑Extender Set to Launch in 2026

Auto Blog

time28 minutes ago

  • Auto Blog

ZF's Modular EV Range‑Extender Set to Launch in 2026

By signing up I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy . You may unsubscribe from email communication at anytime. As some automakers retreat from the 'all-EV by 2030' battle plan, suppliers like ZF Friedrichshafen are quietly preparing smarter alternatives. Its new modular range-extender systems, dubbed eRE and eRE+, are due to enter production in 2026 — and they could help keep internal combustion alive in a way that actually makes sense. Developed at ZF's technical center in Shanghai and engineered for flexible, scalable integration, the eRE platforms aim to provide automakers with an easier path to longer-range electrification — especially in regions with sparse charging infrastructure or price-sensitive buyers. Source: ZF How It Works Unlike a conventional plug-in hybrid, ZF's range-extenders never use the engine to drive the wheels. Instead, the gas engine powers a generator, which in turn charges the battery or powers an electric motor. The base eRE drives the rear wheels, while the eRE+ adds a planetary gearset, differential, and clutch to support front-wheel assist — or full four-wheel drive. The result is a modular, software-defined drivetrain that works with either 400V or 800V vehicle architectures. The eRE produces between 94 and 148 horsepower, while the eRE+ scales to 201 hp. Carmakers supply their own engines and batteries — ZF handles the rest. It's a concept that echoes similar efforts across the industry. ZF's own range-extender push has been framed as a way to extend EV range without resorting to larger, heavier batteries — a particularly useful idea in midsize crossovers, pickups, and vans where space and weight are major concerns. Source: Volkswagen Others Are Thinking The Same Way ZF isn't alone in this line of thinking. Volkswagen recently revised its future EV platform — the Scalable Systems Platform (SSP) — to accommodate optional range extenders. While SSP was originally designed as a pure BEV solution, the company now views a generator-equipped fallback as a pragmatic 'safety net' against softening EV demand. The SSP will remain electric-first, but the range-extender update shows just how much the industry's tone has shifted. Likewise, Scout Motors — the VW Group-owned electric off-road brand — is developing its own version of this concept. The upcoming Scout Traveler SUV and Terra pickup will be available with a 'Harvester Range Extender' that promises to boost range to 500 miles. As with ZF's eRE setup, the Harvester system uses a gasoline engine strictly as a generator, not as a means of direct propulsion. What they all share in common is intent: extending range through smarter architecture, not just bigger batteries. What's Next? ZF's system is ready for global adoption. Manufacturing begins in 2026, with the company targeting automakers across Europe, China, and North America. BMW is reportedly trialing range-extender concepts with its iX5 hydrogen test vehicles, while other brands — particularly those not developing ground-up EV platforms — are evaluating ZF's solution as a retrofit-friendly option. The company previously worked on range-extender setups for London black cabs and is now investing heavily in modular, powertrain-agnostic components that help manufacturers adapt without overhauling their entire production line. For consumers, that could mean EVs that charge less often, cost less upfront, and offer better winter performance — all without forcing a compromise on driving feel or emissions targets. Autoblog Newsletter Autoblog brings you car news; expert reviews and exciting pictures and video. Research and compare vehicles, too. Sign up or sign in with Google Facebook Microsoft Apple By signing up I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy . You may unsubscribe from email communication at anytime. Why It Actually Matters The EV narrative isn't collapsing, but it is correcting. Range anxiety hasn't gone away, and infrastructure rollouts are lagging behind adoption rates. Rather than wait for the grid to catch up, companies like ZF are finding ways to meet drivers where they are — with practical, affordable tools that bridge the gap. Range-extenders won't replace pure EVs or hybrids entirely, but as part of a broader strategy, they may prove to be the missing link — a smart compromise in a world that's still figuring out how to plug in. About the Author Max Taylor View Profile

It's beyond time to end the scandal of IPP
It's beyond time to end the scandal of IPP

The Independent

time36 minutes ago

  • The Independent

It's beyond time to end the scandal of IPP

It comes to something when a senior member of a recent government – the former justice secretary, no less – describes actions by the state that were part of his remit as 'overbearing, unfair and almost totalitarian'. Yet this is how Alex Chalk KC, who held that office for 14 months in the government of Rishi Sunak, describes imprisonment for public protection (IPP) orders – which can keep someone in prison indefinitely after conviction for a relatively minor crime. Ousted from government by his party's defeat at the last election, and also from his parliamentary seat, Mr Chalk has returned to his legal practice. It is from this perch that he is now asking his successor, Shabana Mahmood, to consider new proposals – from the Howard League and a former lord chief justice, Lord Thomas – with a view to righting this now longstanding wrong. At The Independent, we make no apology for returning once again to the iniquity of IPP orders that go against so much of what should constitute any civilised judicial system. Two features stand out. There is the glaring disproportionality in so many cases between the crime and the punishment, with some prisoners having served almost 20 years (and still counting) for offences such as robbing someone of their mobile phone or laptop. This is not, by the way, to diminish such crimes, but to point up the disparity between the standard tariff for such a conviction and the actual time served by many of those still subject to IPP orders. The other feature is the cruelty of imposing a sentence that has no end, which has been described by the UN as psychological torture. With no prospect of a release date, more than 90 such prisoners have taken their own lives. Altogether, more than 2,500 are still languishing in jail on IPPs. This is in spite of these indefinite prison terms having been abolished in 2012, just seven years after they were introduced. The clear mistake then was not to have made the abolition retrospective. It applied only to new convictions, not to those already in jail, leaving the glaring injustice that one day could make a difference between someone left to serve what could become a lifetime sentence and someone convicted of a similar crime with a clear idea of the timetable for release or parole. The failure to make abolition of IPP orders retrospective has had consequences of its own. At least some of those still not released are now so damaged by their experience and will be so hard to rehabilitate that they could indeed present a danger to society if they were released. This is the very opposite of what a penal system should set out to achieve and amounts, in Mr Chalk's words, to nothing less than a failure on the part of the state. At which point, there is an obvious and not unreasonable question for the former justice secretary to answer. If the injustices and perverse effects of IPP orders were so apparent when he came to office – as they were – why did he not do something about it? Why did he not condemn the policy in the same terms as he is doing now and make the changes he is demanding be made by his successor? Part of his answer is that he did do something. He reduced from 10 to three the number of years that a released IPP prisoner was on licence and so subject to recall. That is not nothing, but it was nothing like enough. Two small pleas might also be made on his behalf in mitigation. As he says, there was 'not a single vote' in even the change in the licence period that he made, because of the general lack of public sympathy for prisoners. As he does not say – but is a sentiment with which the current government could well concur – a year can be too short a time in UK politics when it comes to getting anything done. The ponderous nature of the legislative process can be a minus as well as a plus. On the other hand, the size of the Labour government's majority and the years it still has to run mean it has time on its side. After more than a decade of political foot-dragging around IPP orders, however, there is no time to lose. The proposals from the Howard League and Lord Thomas show how this could be done, and offer sufficient safeguards for the public in terms of conditions for those who may be released and a new drive to rehabilitate those still considered a danger to society. At a time when other prisoners are being released ahead of schedule to free up scarce cell space, and the Exchequer needs every penny of saving it can get, it makes no sense at all to keep IPP prisoners inside any longer than the public's safety requires. As Alex Chalk says of the one reform he did make, this may not win a single vote, but it would be the right thing to do. Indeed it is – and the sooner it is done, the better.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store