Currys boss urges government not to raise taxes on retailers
Alex Baldock, the retailer's chief executive, said: 'We urge government not to make a further contribution to the tax burden as that would further dampen investment and increase prices in an inflationary way.
'I would urge government to think very carefully before making the situation worse.'
Baldock's comments come after the boss of Sainsbury's, Simon Roberts, also said this week that the government should be wary of loading retailers with more tax after the 'high impact', particularly on jobs, of raising national insurance costs this year.
The chancellor, Rachel Reeves, is widely expected to raise fresh funds in her autumn budget as she attempts to fix public services and grow the economy while meeting her fiscal rules and dealing with the fallout from the government's U-turn on welfare cuts.
Keir Starmer repeated his support for Reeves on Thursday morning, after speculation over her future injected panic into financial markets on Wednesday.
Baldock said Currys – which has about 300 stores in the UK – and other retailers were already holding back on hiring more staff because of an increase in employers' national insurance contributions and the rise in the 'national living wage' in April. He said consumer confidence was on an improving trend but still down on a year ago.
Despite this, the retailer reported a 37% jump in pre-tax profits to £162m in the year to 3 May and resumed dividend payments to shareholders after a two-year pause. Group sales rose 3% to £8.7bn.
Currys increased sales at established UK stores by 6%, helped by a 12% rise in sales of services including repairs, financing and mobile subscriptions.
Sign up to Business Today
Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning
after newsletter promotion
Sales of laptops and mobile phones were bolstered by demand for AI-enabled gadgets. Sales were also helped as customers began replacing laptops bought five years ago when the onset of the Covid pandemic forced Britons to begin working from home, triggering a boom in computer sales.
Baldock said the wider electrical goods market had been flat in the UK and there were concerns about cheap electricals being dumped on online marketplaces amid new taxes on imports of such goods to the US and planned changes in the EU.
Baldock said that dumping did not directly affect Currys, which mostly sells larger, more expensive items, but he welcomed the government's promise that it would look at the so-called de minimis rules, which allow tax breaks on low value goods sent directly to consumers. He said changes should be made with 'some urgency'.
In the UK, the threshold for import duty is £135, and items valued at £39 or less also do not attract import VAT.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
34 minutes ago
- Times
After a terrible anniversary week, is Keir Starmer finished?
At the Spectator summer party, one of the biggest events of Westminster's social calendar, much of the conversation centred around one man — Nigel Farage. The Reform UK leader and his allies adjourned to a private terrace overlooking the Spectator garden and private security cordoned off the stairs. There they sipped Dom Perignon while cabinet ministers and senior Tories including Kemi Badenoch and Robert Jenrick circled the garden below. When the news broke that Jeremy Corbyn, the former Labour leader, was planning to found a new party there were cheers from the Reform terrace. A new Corbyn-led hard left party meant yet more pain for Starmer — and a bad end to a truly terrible anniversary week for the prime minister. Senior Tories were disparaging about Farage and his coterie of supporters. 'They're so cocky,' said one shadow cabinet minister. Labour ministers said Farage offered 'no answers'. But both parties were alive to the threat posed by the man standing a few yards from them. At a cabinet meeting on Tuesday Starmer expressed his pride in his government's achievements after a year in power, listing off what he views as the successes. Free school meals, increasing defence spending to 2.6 per cent of GDP, trade deals with the US, the EU and India. The list went on. But within a few hours he was forced to make an extraordinary retreat in the face of a mass rebellion by Labour MPs over the government's welfare reforms, leaving a £5 billion hole in the exchequer. Then it got worse. On Wednesday Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, broke down in tears at the dispatch box, prompting a frenzy in the bond markets. As the dust settles this weekend, some cabinet ministers are asking the question: is it terminal? Will Starmer, who secured a landslide majority at the last election, lead Labour into the next election? 'It feels like it's done,' said one. Certainly the polling is bleak — and far worse than that for any party in recent political history that won a landslide just twelve months before. Research by YouGov for The Times this week found that just one in five voters (21 per cent) think that Labour has done well in office so far and less than a third think they are any better than the previous Conservative government. Across a range of issues the party's voters are deeply dissatisfied with the government's performance. On the cost of living, 62 per cent of those who backed Labour at the election say the government is doing badly, while 46 per cent are unhappy with the government's handling of the NHS. On Starmer himself: 69 per cent of voters think he's weak, 65 per cent say he doesn't care about people like them and 49 per cent say he's dishonest. Anthony Wells, head of European political research at YouGov, said: 'Labour's problem is that despite their landslide victory last year there was never any great enthusiasm for them in the first place — people were voting against the Tories. So as they have made some unpopular decisions they have not had any goodwill in the bank to fall back on.' Yet concerns about whether Starmer can survive need a reality check — Labour does not have the same appetite for regicide as the Tories or the same mechanisms for removing a leader. Even his most ardent critics concede that there there is no obvious successor who is capable of uniting Starmer's fragmenting electoral coalition. Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, appeals to those on the left of the party but there are questions about whether she could command broader support. Wes Streeting, the health secretary, has the same problem the other way — he can appeal to those in the centre but has more limited appeal to those on the left. The YouGov polling also shows that all the plausible Labour alternatives, including Rayner and Streeting, are seen as more likely to be worse than Starmer. The speculation about Starmer's future stems in part from the knowledge that things are likely to get much worse. As difficult as the first year has been, the challenges of the second will eclipse them — the biggest of which will be the budget. At the cabinet on Tuesday, before the week's calamitous events, Reeves sounded a warning to ministers. At that stage the government had only made a partial about turn on welfare, protecting all existing claimants at a cost of £2.5 billion. Reeves said the compromise came at a cost, and that money would need to be raised. She said the last budget, painful as it was with £40 billion worth of tax rises, represented the 'low-hanging fruit'. The next budget would be more challenging. The tax rises are likely to be big. The cost of the change in direction on welfare and winter fuel payments came to around £6 billion, but economists are much more concerned about the anaemic levels of economic growth and a potential downgrade in forecasts. Some put the figure that needs to be raised as high as £30 billion, which would require huge tax rises. Cabinet ministers privately acknowledge that the benefits U-turn means all options for raising tax are now on the table. That includes potentially breaking the manifesto pledge not to raise income tax, national insurance or VAT, although ministers are loath to do so. A tax raid on pension savings is also being considered. Paul Johnson, director of the Institute of Fiscal Studies, said it would be very hard for Labour to find the money necessary without touching those 'big three' taxes. 'I don't really think there is [a way of doing it],' he said. 'We don't really know what kind of levels of money the chancellor will need to find but if we are looking at £30 billion, which is quite plausible, I can't see a way in which she raises that kind of money without hitting people on middle incomes as they did with the national insurance increase.' One minister said that while they would prefer spending restraint over tax rises, they appear to be unavoidable. They said that all options would need to be considered. The Times has been told that the government will not reopen the spending review despite the scale of the gap in the public minister was philosophical. The reality was that on many occasions the government had to choose between 'bad choices or very bad choices'. That, at times, government is effectively a Sophie's choice, with no good options on the table.
Times
34 minutes ago
- Times
Britain's biggest fact-checking company goes into administration
Britain's biggest fact-checking company has gone into administration, The Times has learnt. Logically was born in the wake of the 2016 United States presidential election and the Brexit referendum. It once boasted 200 employees in the UK, India and America. Its founder, Lyric Jain, a Cambridge engineering graduate, said he was also motivated by the death of his paternal grandmother in India who died after being persuaded to abandon chemotherapy treatment in favour of a 'special juice'. He said his goal was 'tackling harmful and manipulative content at speed and scale' and 'bringing truth to the digital world, and making it a safer place for everyone everywhere'. Jain hails from a wealthy Indian family, whose home is a mansion in Staffordshire that once belonged to Admiral Sir John Jervis, a naval commander in the 18th century. The fact-checking industry is facing a backlash driven by President Trump's second administration, but former employees of Logically blame its demise on what they claim were strategic errors from the company's leadership. Logically did fact-checking for Meta and TikTok under the Logically Facts brand and also developed an AI software product that analysed social media posts for disinformation. Former staff point to a decision by the company to work for the controversial fact-checking unit of the Indian state government of Karnataka as a crucial misstep. The unit was criticised by the Editors Guild of India and other organisations who argued the system could be used to suppress dissent and free speech and threaten independent journalism. That contract led to the loss of its certification from International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), an industry body, which does not allow fact-checkers to be employed by state entities or political parties. Around that time Logically lost the Meta and TikTok contracts which were worth millions of pounds in revenue. Sources close to Logically suggest the loss of the social media contracts was for commercial reasons rather than certification. Logically also worked for the British government's Counter-Disinformation Unit during the Covid pandemic, attracting some controversy from free speech supporters. • Disinformation unit 'tried to stifle Covid lockdown critics' Angie Drobnic Holan, director of the IFCN, said of the Indian contract: 'They lost their certification in part because of that and also concerns about overall transparency. 'It wasn't clear what work was journalistic and what work was … private, for lack of a better word. We knew that they were doing some work advising governments, but it wasn't very clear what the nature of that work was or how it impacted their fact-checking operation. 'There was no allegation that they were doing anything wrong. But our code is about meeting very high standards.' Former staff said the company was keen to drop human-driven fact-checking in favour of an AI software product called Logically Intelligence. The product was hampered when social media companies like X cut off access to their data. Tech giants including Google, Meta and X have dropped or scaled back fact-checking services in recent month. After Trump's election, Meta scrapped its external fact-checkers on Facebook, Instagram and Threads, replacing them with a 'crowd-sourced' system like the one pioneered on social media site announced this week that AI would be writing fact-checking notes on its crowd-sourced system called Community Notes. Last week Google dropped a system called ClaimReview that allowed fact-checkers to promote accurate information on search Morris, chief executive of Full Fact, a British fact-checking charity, said: 'Google's decision to deprioritise fact-checks will make it harder for users to access accurate information designed to help them make informed choices. It's a disappointing decision from a company that has until very recently been a global fact-checking champion.'Google said the change was a 'minor clean-up' which 'affected a very small percentage of results'. Logically's assets have been transferred to another company called Kreatur under a pre-pack administration process. The main shareholder and director of Kreatur, Ashwin Kumaraswamy, is a former director and the original investor in Logically.A Kreatur spokesperson said: 'Kreatur Ltd has acquired Logically's core technology, brand and key assets as part of a pre-pack administration process. The transaction ensures continuity for all customers and preserves over 40 full-time roles.' Kumaraswamy was approached for comment.
Times
34 minutes ago
- Times
Rachel Reeves's tears were ours after a year of Keir Starmer
Rachel Reeves's tears were at once mortal and mythical. Each droplet running down her face took a point off the pound, set those mysterious dark forces the bond markets howling. She's the goose who lays the golden eggs in reverse: the woman who can leak away her country's wealth with every tear. Poor Rachel Reeves. The first female chancellor is made not of iron but all too human flesh. Will there be conversations now about how women holding this office are a fiscal risk, too mutable to maintain the sphinx-like calm capitalism demands? • Bond yields rise and pound falls as Starmer fails to back Reeves The most unforgiving voices I've heard are in fact those of older women, shoulder-pad-era survivors, who had to spend their careers aping powerful men. Don't give those bastards the satisfaction of calling you 'emotional': keep it all tamped down until you reach the sanctity of the ladies' loo or your own car. Men, I find, just accept that crying is what women do. And it is. Crying is a substitute for smashing phones or hard drinking, for landing punches, shouting or stewing in silence alone. It is our superpower, release valve and restart button, and a key reason suicide is four times more prevalent among men. The mistake is to assume all tears spring from the same source: women cry not out of weakness but rage, frustration, despair or as a last defence to say 'enough now, I can't take any more'. So what was going on at PMQs? To judge from her slump-shouldered, kicked dog mien, Reeves had reached her limit. In her puffy face was every four-hour night's sleep, bleak spreadsheet and bitter meeting. Was the cause, as claimed, 'personal'? If so, one wonders not just why she entered the chamber but why she turned up extraneously the next day in east London at the NHS launch, wearing a ton of make-up and a rictus smile. But then isn't all of our vicious modern politics personal? More revealing is the PM's behaviour. Keir Starmer said later that in the heat of PMQs he hadn't noticed his chancellor's distress — though she'd sat right beside him and he'd turned to her for help finding a reference in his notes. I was reminded of an anecdote in Tom Baldwin's biography about a young Starmer so focused on his law studies he didn't notice burglars in his flat stealing the TV. The story is offered as an example of Starmer's single-minded focus. But now we see a uni-tasking 60-something man without the emotional intelligence to bridge the competing demands of this awful moment, then next day — like a husband hastily buying petrol station flowers — staging a hug of compassion for the cameras. Reeves had endured a year of being marched into battle to make cuts to our untenable, bloated welfare system, whether winter fuel payments or PIP (personal independence payment). Starmer let her argue the case, take the flak, then, because he lacked the charisma, conviction, leadership or nerve to bring enough MPs from his vast majority with him, left her swinging in the wind. Almost all of the government's achievements that Starmer reeled off, as Reeves's lower lip quivered, involved more public spending. Breakfast clubs, free school meals, more social housing and NHS appointments: lovely, safe, core Labour promises. It was Reeves's job, peering down that infamous fiscal black hole, to pay for them all. And against the party's grain she wrestled with difficult choices a Starmer government promised not to balk at. Now she's back at the Treasury, £5 billion short, staring into an abyss. Reeves's tears reflect the national mood on this government's first anniversary. The country, especially those of us who saw in Starmer a chance for dull technocratic calm after a decade of chaos, share her frustration, rage, despair. This Labour government wasn't supposed to fall into the usual traps, wasn't just going to tax business and expand the welfare state, but would re-establish the social contract's first principles. Crime will be punished; if you are severely incapacitated the state will help you, otherwise you must work; control national borders. This is basic governance. And now it is not just hard to deliver logistically or financially but ideologically, too. A group of Labour backbenchers, around 100, are certain they will be one-term MPs. Reform is growing, and an alliance between Greens, Corbynites and Islamic sectarians is spreading in the Midlands and university towns. Untethered from an aloof Labour leader, backbenchers have a choice: uphold a doomed Starmer government they see as right-leaning, or follow their own social justice passions. Yeah, the voters dumped me — but dammit, I stayed pure. After the welfare debacle they are likely to echo Kevin Spacey's character in American Beauty: 'You don't get to tell me what to do ever again.' Starmer's only option, according to Blue Labour's Lord Glasman, is to call their bluff: let's make this a confidence vote, fall in line or we'll call a general election now. As if Starmer, who has bottled out of every battle, has the guts. Meanwhile, an extraordinary 1,000 more people are signed up to PIP every day with the government not even reapplying the basic filter of face-to-face checks, and this week 2,000 more small boat migrants arrived requiring free hotel rooms. Rents rose 7 per cent in a year, firms are holding off hiring because of NI rises, shoplifting is soaring, no one expects the police to investigate a snatched phone or a stolen car. To say the country is broken is to disrespect the legions who work so hard — but it is chronically stalled. If Starmer can't rally his party, Reform will feast upon these problems — and who will be crying then?
