logo
Reeves needs to take a leaf out of Gordon Brown's book

Reeves needs to take a leaf out of Gordon Brown's book

Telegraph12 hours ago
In 2002, Gordon Brown introduced the small breweries' relief (SBR), slashing taxation for UK 'micro-breweries'.
The then-chancellor's instincts were broadly statist. Britain's tax burden grew from 31pc to 34pc of GDP from 1997 to 2010 – the decade he spent running the Treasury followed by three more as prime minister.
But Brown also had commercial acumen, understanding the need not just to talk about economic growth but create an enabling environment to make it happen.
His SBR tax-break, which saw breweries producing up to 5,000 hectolitres (around 880,000 pints) annually paying half the standard duty rate, was a case in point.
SBR was transformative, sparking the formation of thousands of independent breweries – creating not only thousands of jobs, but hundreds of millions of pounds in tax revenue from production, distribution and sales activities that wouldn't otherwise have existed.
Britain's declining beer industry was revolutionised, as small, often family-run breweries emerged to compete with large national and global producers. There was a brewing resurgence not just in cities, but in towns and rural areas too, as 'craft breweries' became rooted in countless UK communities.
The financial relief offered by SBR encouraged investment, innovation and a dramatic rise in beer styles – more and better products at lower prices. But, above all, Brown's anti-statist, tax-cutting move generated more jobs, higher exports and far more tax revenues too.
Rachel Reeves had a picture of Gordon Brown on her wall as a student. Yet today's Chancellor should remember that her political hero and mentor, for all the big-state proclivities she shares, was pragmatic and courageous enough to sometimes shrug off the comfort blanket of Left-wing ideology and do what worked.
Brown cut the basic rate of income tax from 23pc in 2000 to 20pc in 2007, stimulating economic activity. He reduced the main rate of corporation tax from 33pc to 28pc and the small business rate from 24pc to 19pc.
Most famously, in his first Budget in 1997, he slashed the long-term rate of capital gains tax (CGT) from 40pc to 10pc for those building businesses, super-charging innovation and entrepreneurship.
Yes, Brown made some disastrous calls – not least selling-off much of the UK's gold stock for a song and the abolition of pensions funds' dividend tax credits, costing hundreds of billions of pounds in compounded returns foregone, seriously weakening UK retirement funds.
But despite his political tribalism and robotic delivery at the Commons dispatch box, he was capable of intellectual agility, demonstrating policymaking nous which, from time to time, really hit the spot.
Since becoming Chancellor last July, Reeves has shown no such agility. She has hiked tax rates relentlessly, with her October Budget comprising a huge £40bn annual tax increase plus £30bn of extra yearly state borrowing.
Having imbibed the soft-Left nostrums of mediocre academic economics, she is convinced that state spending, financed by taxation and borrowing, is the only route to growth.
In the real world, her crude, naive Keynesianism, implemented at a time of already serious fiscal peril, has caused the decidedly lacklustre economy she inherited from the Tories to stagnate even more, while driving us to the edge of a fiscal crisis. Hammered by Reeves, consumers have pulled in their horns and business investment has stalled.
No surprise, then, that on Friday the Office for National Statistics confirmed that GDP fell by 0.1pc in May, having already contracted 0.3pc the month before.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Germany's Merz wants to use coming weeks to find solution to Trump tariff row
Germany's Merz wants to use coming weeks to find solution to Trump tariff row

Reuters

time32 minutes ago

  • Reuters

Germany's Merz wants to use coming weeks to find solution to Trump tariff row

BERLIN, July 13 (Reuters) - German Chancellor Friedrich Merz on Sunday said he will work intensively with French President Emmanuel Macron and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to resolve the escalating trade war with the United States. "I discussed this intensively over the weekend with both Macron and Ursula von der Leyen," Merz told German broadcaster ARD, adding he had also spoken with U.S. President Donald Trump about the matter. "We want to use this time now, the two and half weeks until August 1 to find a solution. I am really committed to this," Merz said. President Donald Trump on Saturday threatened to impose a 30% tariff on imports from Mexico and the European Union starting on August 1, after weeks of negotiations with the major U.S. trading partners failed to reach a comprehensive trade deal. Merz said the German economy would be hit hard by the tariffs, and he was doing his best to make sure U.S. tariffs of 30% were not imposed. Unity in Europe and a sensible dialogue with the American President were now needed, Merz said, although countermeasures should not be ruled out. When asked if he would go along with counter-tariffs as proposed by France, Merz said: "Yes, but not before August 1."

Mayors to be given powers to fast track planning permission
Mayors to be given powers to fast track planning permission

Times

time37 minutes ago

  • Times

Mayors to be given powers to fast track planning permission

Mayors will get sweeping powers to grant upfront planning permission in Labour's drive to speed up development. Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, has promised more 'large-scale projects' as she grants mayors greater control over what is built locally. An English devolution bill published last week set out Rayner's plan for all areas of the country to have a mayor with greater powers over areas such as transport, skills and housing. The bill will give mayors far wider power over local planning applications as Rayner and Sir Keir Starmer aim to kickstart homebuilding and other development that will spur the economy. Labour is promising to build 1.5 million homes over the parliament, but numbers have slumped to record lows under rules introduced by the previous government.

Swinney has blown our chances of a payoff for all those turbines
Swinney has blown our chances of a payoff for all those turbines

Times

time38 minutes ago

  • Times

Swinney has blown our chances of a payoff for all those turbines

Lesley Riddoch is fed up. Granted, this is not an unusual condition for the independence-supporting columnist and promoter of all things Nordic. But it is not hard to understand why she's upset that there was scarcely a murmur of discontent from the Scottish government last week after Ed Miliband scrapped zonal energy pricing. 'Where's the outcry from the SNP or Greens?' she asked, plaintively. What was so wrong about Scots getting cheaper bills? How could John Swinney have missed this opportunity to demand that Scots get direct benefit from Scotland's wind? Surely this was a slam dunk for a nationalist party which always claims that Scots were robbed of the last energy bonanza in the North Sea. Zonal pricing is the idea, promoted by Greg Jackson of Octopus Energy and backed by Jonathan Brearley of the regulator Ofgem, that electricity prices in Scotland should reflect its contribution to addressing climate change. All those wind farms in the North Sea and the towering turbines now gracing Scotland's hills are supposed to deliver cheap-as-chips energy. But Scottish bills have continued to rise, plunging around a million Scots into fuel poverty. • Rejection of postcode electricity pricing pleases energy bosses Yet Scotland could enjoy 'the cheapest energy costs in Europe', according to Jackson, if the UK government introduced zonal pricing. The cost of electricity, he says, should reflect the cost of producing and transporting it. In the past, location didn't matter much because power for the electricity grid was generated by coal, gas and nuclear plants which were dispersed across the country. But with renewable energy generated in the North Sea, location very much does matter. It is expensive to transport the electricity produced by Scottish wind farms to the south of England, where most of it is used. Huge infrastructure projects are necessary to drag the reluctant electrons five hundred miles through cables and interconnections. A lot of energy is lost on the way through heat and leakage. Allowing energy costs to fall in areas where it is generated should be more energy-efficient. More importantly, it might encourage energy-intensive industries to come to Scotland. Those footloose data centres and artificial intelligence companies, with their insatiable demand for energy, could locate in Scotland to take advantage of lower energy costs. Given the chronic overconcentration of economic activity in the south of England, this is not such a daft idea. At any rate, you'd think that this is something that would appeal to Swinney, the first minister, who keeps saying he wants economic growth brought back to Scotland. Scotland was one of the centres of the Industrial Revolution largely because of an abundance of coal and other raw materials. That's why the Clyde could build a fifth of world shipping before the First World War and mills such as Ravenscraig could later turn out miles of sheet metal for the motor industry. The days of coal are over, of course, and Westminster has passed a death sentence on the Scottish oil and gas industry. So surely Scotland would have a case for demanding that the new industries of the digital age should be located where energy is abundant. Of course, zonal pricing might have had awkward trade-offs. If Scots paid less for their energy, English consumers would presumably have to pay more. Yet it would not be a massive imposition for the 65 million consumers who don't live in Scotland to finance a couple of hundred quid off the bills of the five million who do. The main reason Swinney has been reluctant to campaign for zonal pricing is that the big energy companies, most notably SSE and Scottish Power, are firmly against it. These largely foreign-owned behemoths have a material interest in the status quo. They are compensated generously by a panoply of schemes such as contracts for difference, which effectively guarantee that the profits from renewable energy are never less than the profits they make from gas. At least a quarter of domestic energy bills go toward subsidies for renewables. They claim that they would not be able to finance new wind farms if differential pricing undermined profitability. However, the energy companies also benefit directly from the mismatch between where energy is generated and where it is used. Last year they earned nearly £2.7 billion in constraint payments, largely for turning their windmills off when they generated too much energy for the grid to accommodate. A quarter of Scotland's potential was switched off last year. Well, there seems an obvious solution to that. Even more obvious is surely the propaganda benefit to a nationalist government of a situation where Scottish wind energy was actually being wasted. Moreover, communities are already being compensated for proximity to wind farms, albeit in a very limited way. RES, a renewables development company, has been setting up local energy discount schemes (LEDs) across the country since 2012. Properties near Glenchamber Wind Farm in Dumfries and Galloway can apply for a £200 discount on electricity bills. So zonal pricing is actually happening — just not at scale. And even as Miliband killed the idea of zonal pricing, he promised zonal compensation for communities facing wind farm development. There will have to be, he said, 'direct community benefits'. Perhaps it is not feasible to disaggregate the National Grid to create zonal pricing. There is a democratic argument that energy costs should be the same across the UK. But given that so much of the cost of renewables is covered by subsidies, surely this could be re-engineered to allow Scottish homes and businesses to benefit from all that wind. UK energy policy is anyway riddled with anomalies, waste and unfairness. Miliband is using punitive taxation to accelerate the collapse of Scotland's oil and gas industry. The promise of a bonanza of green jobs has been as false as Labour's promise to cut energy bills by £300. If zonal pricing isn't feasible, then what would be a sensible way of compensating Scots for the disruption to their environment and their selfless contribution to saving the planet? And why isn't the Scottish government arguing for it? For once, there is good reason here to play the Scottish card. Instead of meekly acquiescing in the diktat of the renewable energy cartel, the Scottish government should be holding Miliband's feet to the fire and making sure the dash for renewables doesn't leave Scotland on the sidelines. As Riddoch says: 'Why the heck not?'

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