Reeves's vindictive attacks on business will cost us all
'There could be no better example of that than the vindictive family business and family farm death tax, which will carve up successful businesses as and when they are handed down to the next generation,' he added.
With one of the 17 parliamentary days allocated to the party as the official opposition, the Conservatives elected to hold a debate on business and the economy, calling on the Government to urgently reverse measures such as the business property relief (BPR) reforms to support family businesses and other enterprises which 'take risks to create wealth and jobs that benefit people across the country'.
BPR reforms have elicited strong emotions since they were announced by the Chancellor last year. Now family businesses have the data to support the claim that the policy is already having a chilling effect on the entire economy.
Earlier this year, a report by Family Business UK, a not-for-profit organisation advocating for the industry, found that 23pc of family businesses and 17pc of family farms had already cut jobs or paused recruitment in response to the BPR and agricultural property relief (APR) reforms coming into effect next year.
It predicted that the changes would result in more than 208,000 jobs being lost by the end of the current parliament, ultimately delivering a net loss of £1.9 billion to the Treasury by 2029.
'Our members tell us, and our sector research shows, that decisions are being taken now to cut jobs, reduce investment and sell assets, putting at risk the future of thousands of businesses,' said Fiona Graham, of Family Business UK.
'The changes to BPR and APR are having an immediate impact on family-owned enterprises, threatening not just their future but the livelihoods of working people and communities right across the country who depend on them,' she added.
Playing fast and loose with jobs
Georgiana Bristol, chief executive of the Jobs Foundation, told me the Government needed to act fast if the worst impact of the policy was to be mitigated.
Speaking from her experience heading the charity, which promotes the role of businesses in creating jobs and sustaining communities, Ms Bristol expressed concern that decisions family firms were being forced to make could not easily be undone in four years' time, particularly if they involved, for example, selling a part of the business to insure it against future tax bills.
In a crowded field of ideologically driven economic policies that have backfired on the Treasury, the BPR reforms stand out as particularly prejudiced.
Campaigners claim no impact assessments were carried out, nor were any consultations held with the very diverse group of businesses affected by the policy – from family law practices to garden centres to petrol stations.
For a Chancellor grappling with an astronomical welfare bill coupled with chronic joblessness, playing fast and loose with stable jobs which sustain local communities, by targeting an especially driven group who are proven job creators, does indeed seem 'vindictive'.
'Running or investing in a business at its core,' said Mr Griffith in the Commons last week, 'is a profound act of human courage – the triumph of optimism over inertia'.
That is sadly not a quality that the Chancellor or the Treasury are prepared to countenance.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
3 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Five tricks to stop your pension falling short: Experts warn HALF of workers over 60 don't have enough money for retirement – but here's how YOU can catch up fast
Baby boomers face a financial crunch, with figures revealing almost half of workers over 60 won't have enough money to fund the lifestyle they want in retirement. As many as 49 per cent of the still-employed generation aged 60 to 80 are not expected to reach their retirement goals, according to research for The Mail on Sunday.
Telegraph
4 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Iceland under pressure as supermarket price war intensifies
Rapid growth at Iceland has ground to a halt as the frozen food chain comes under mounting pressure in the face of an intensifying supermarket price war. The retailer has told bondholders that underlying profits rose just 0.6pc to £317.6m in the year to the end of March, compared to a 24pc jump the prior year. Revenues were largely flat at £4.2bn over the year, although its 2024 financial year – when sales jumped 6.6pc – was boosted by an additional trading week. Stripping these figures out, sales were up 3pc this year on prior year. The slowdown is understood to have come as Iceland pushes to keep prices lower as supermarkets battle to attract and retain shoppers. Earlier this year, Asda kicked off a price war in an attempt to stem years of declines. Its new chairman, Allan Leighton, has vowed to use a 'war chest' to fund price cuts, improve availability of products and refresh tired stores. The company said this would mean profits would take a 'material hit'. Tesco responded by saying its profits would fall as much as 14pc this year with plans to invest £400m in price cuts. To avoid losing shoppers to rivals, Iceland has been stepping up its programme of multibuy promotions, where customers can buy bundles of products for less than if they bought them separately. This meant that while the number of items it sold last year increased by 5.3pc, it did not see an rise in the value of its sales. Credit rating agency, Fitch, said shoppers continued to turn to Iceland for value 'despite heightened competition'. Its market share has remained flat at between 2.3pc and 2.4pc over the past five years. Fitch added: 'We expect Iceland's product offering to remain competitive for UK food consumers with weaker spending power.' However, the credit ratings agency raised concerns over Iceland's profitability, suggesting the supermarket chain would have to invest in price cuts this year at a time when it is battling higher costs. It said the supermarket, which employs more than 30,000 people, would face 'momentary profit pressure', publishing forecasts suggesting underlying profits could dip this year. Fitch said: 'The company, along with other UK-based retailers, will be hit by the rise in National Insurance and minimum living wage contributions from [this year], which we estimate will result in an additional cost of £50m.' Iceland chairman, Richard Walker, said earlier this year the National Insurance raid had 'added greatly to the cost of business', ranking the Labour government a 'six out of 10' for its performance in office. It followed earlier efforts to downplay the hit. Last year, after Rachel Reeves's Budget, Mr Walker said companies should stop 'wallowing' and 'complaining' about the tax raid. Mr Walker, who had been a donor to the Tory party before switching allegiance to Labour, said last December: 'The Government isn't going to change its mind. It was a tough Budget, but we adapt.' The expected profit crunch comes after Iceland's chief executive, Tarsem Dhaliwal, in April said the company was bracing for surging food costs. Speaking to industry publication. The Grocer, Mr Dhaliwal said his biggest concern was rising prices being imposed by its suppliers. He said: 'The reality is that we have to be conscious of the fact our suppliers are going to pass the costs onto us, literally straight away. We can't absorb all that, I don't think any retailer can, so there's going to be food inflation.' At the time, Mr Dhaliwal said that Iceland would be battling to 'remain competitive', adding: 'Consumers might end up with less items in their basket, still spending £10 but on less items.' Already, food inflation is running at around 4pc, according to figures from the British Retail Consortium, with increases in the price of staples such as meat and tea fuelling the higher level.
The Independent
33 minutes ago
- The Independent
I'm a bouncer – policing what people say in pubs is a step too far
'The death of the Great British pub,' screamed a recent headline. The story underneath was referring to the idea of so-called 'banter bouncers': card-carrying heavies who go from table to table in licensed venues, ensuring all spoken language is kept strictly PG. As an actual bouncer (or an SIA level 2 licensed door supervisor, to use my official job title), this smells like clickbait. In a time where six pubs and three clubs are going under every week in the UK, the notion of hiring an extra set of size elevens to prowl the carpet and make sure no one's talking out of line seems like blue-sky thinking. Yet the government's Employment Rights Bill, back on the table when MPs return from recess next month, includes provisions to require employers to 'take all reasonable steps' to prevent harassment at work by third parties. A TUC poll found that three in five women have experienced sexual harassment, bullying or verbal abuse at work. The TUC also clarified that shopworkers, NHS workers and many other public-facing staff experience abuse from customers. Yet this clause leaves employers to interpret it for themselves. Harsh language isn't something I particularly look out for in the job – not unless it's causing someone serious upset. I'm more focused on hands hovering over the top of women's drinks, or underage kids eyeing up barrels in the loading bay. Two of my security colleagues, who guard a residential venue, recently had their hands full trying to get a towel around a naked sleepwalker. Then there's the question of what actually constitutes 'banter.' Everyone's got the right to let off verbal steam when they're out, provided that they're not scalding the next customer's right to do the same. Door staff soon learn the difference between government guidelines, the venue's policy and what counts as unreasonable. Trying to police what people are saying once they've had their first few gulps of loose juice seems not just completely unreasonable, but more like commercial death. Eighteen to 34-year-olds make up the largest single age group of pub clientele (28 per cent), and apparently a quarter of them prefer messaging to voices. Surely serious banter bouncing should be done digitally? Something best left to the billionaires and the algorithms, if you ask me. I can see the small print on the next software update now: 'Any detection of flagged language will result in the darkest secrets from your camera roll being automatically sent to your nan and/or your mother-in-law.' The idea of refereeing private conversations face-to-face seems so far-fetched that I suspect there's a hidden agenda behind the banter bouncer headlines: to wind people up. This year, opposing voices on the political spectrum have been decrying that everything is broken, the elites are taking over, and the only way to feel like you still count is to gang up on the streets and start kicking bins over. As someone who has to keep an eye on the streets and stands the bins back up again, I'm yet to see the threats to my way of life that I'm being warned about. But I have seen those in power taking notes: the prime minister is pledging a 'strengthened crackdown' on potential rioters. Anyone facing a spell inside could also find themselves being shot by the new tasers being issued to prison staff. Hopefully, us door crew won't be made to carry extra tools if we're put on language patrol. I got into the job to stop trouble – not to ignite it. High prices and lagging wages can leave a lot of people just one rude word or indiscretion away from blowing up. If you want to know whether your own choice of banter counts as one of those trigger words, I advise going to an expert: Countdown 's lexicographer, Susie Dent. She recently shared the term 'lalochezia': 'the use of swearing to relieve stress, anger, pain or frustration.' Before that, she dropped 'circumlocutionist': 'one who consistently speaks in a roundabout way'. Lalochezia is okay – but don't be a circumlocutionist. And if that last one's too much of a mouthful? Swap it for a more versatile C-word with fewer syllables.
