Wealth tax should be considered by Treasury, former Labour minister suggests
Anneliese Dodds has argued it is 'important' for the Government to consider evidence set out by the Wealth Tax Commission, which looked at whether such a tax would be desirable and deliverable in the UK.
In its final report, released in 2020, the Commission said a one-off wealth tax on millionaire couples paid at 1% a year for five years would raise £260 billion.
Others in the Labour Party, including former leader Lord Neil Kinnock and Wales's First Minister Baroness Eluned Morgan, have also called for a wealth tax.
Union leaders, including Sharon Graham of Unite, are also pressuring ministers to consider the move.
A tax on the wealthy has not been formally ruled out by ministers, but Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds branded the idea as 'daft' in June this year.
Ms Dodds resigned as a Foreign Office minister over the Government's decision to cut overseas aid to fund a boost to defence spending in February.
Speaking to Sky News' Electoral Dysfunction, she said work undertaken by the Wealth Tax Commission 'has changed the debate'.
The MP for Oxford East added: 'They looked at the operation of lots of different wealth tax. They looked at all of that evidence and set out how it would be possible to deliver something like that in a UK context.
'I would hope that the Treasury is considering that kind of evidence as well as other changes that have been put forward.
'We've seen the deputy leader of the Labour Party, for example, put forward suggestions. I think it's important for all of those to be considered now.'
On Rachel Reeves' approach to welfare, Ms Dodds said: 'An attempt was made to deal with a quite immediate problem, but I don't think you can, particularly via cuts, actually deliver the kind of fiscal room that is necessary.'
'It may make sense tactically, but strategically a longer-term approach is needed and that's the the big issue that the Government has to face up to,' she added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
4 minutes ago
- The Independent
Best home security system without subscription
Finding the best home security system without a subscription is a priority for many homeowners who don't want to be tied into ongoing fees after the initial purchase. Paying hundreds of pounds for a full home security system is often only part of the story, since many companies charge a monthly or annual fee to make use of every feature. These fees often cover the cost of cloud video storage, making your home security camera and video doorbell recordings available online. Some companies also lock extra functionality, like battery and cellular backup systems, or facial recognition powered by AI, behind a paywall. Security specialists like Simplisafe and Verisure use your monthly payment to fund professional monitoring services. But what if you don't want to pay a monthly subscription fee for your home security system? You'll miss out on some of the features mentioned above, but in return you get an alarm and home security system that works without any ongoing costs. There are several companies – including Eufy, Blink, Yale and TP-Link – that sell security systems with no monthly fee. They often make cloud storage available as an optional extra, but since video recordings are recorded locally, on the system itself, the subscription is exactly that: optional. Why pay for a home security subscription? Before we get to the options for best home security system without a subscription, it's worth reminding ourselves why some systems demand a monthly or annual fee to unlock full functionality. Ring is perhaps the best-known example, since even its simplest video doorbells and security cameras require a subscription to work properly. Without paying the fee, Ring's cameras and doorbells don't store any video footage. They still stream live to the Ring app – so you can see who's at the door when they press the button. But past events can't be accessed, so you won't be able to see what motion triggered your security camera while you were asleep. Ring's alarm kit also requires a subscription to enable its cellular and battery-backup systems, which keep the system online during a broadband outage or power cut. Other systems, like those from Simplisafe and Verisure, charge a fee for cloud video storage, as well as for access to their 24/7 professional monitoring services. This is where trained agents respond to your alarm, make contact with you, and, if necessary, call emergency services. Best home security systems without a subscription At the time of writing, in mid-2025, my favourite home security system without a subscription is made by Eufy. This is because Eufy's security cameras and video doorbells all record footage locally, either to the device's own integrated storage, a microSD card, or to the company's HomeBase, which acts as a central hub with expandable storage. Eufy's third-generation HomeBase also adds artificial intelligence to your compatible cameras and doorbell, which helps your security system recognise friendly faces (like your family members) and not alert you when they're spotted. Cloud storage is offered by Eufy, priced from £3.99 to £12.99 a month, but it's purely optional. All other features are included in the up-front price of the hardware. It's a similar case with Yale, whose security system also works without a subscription. The Yale Smart Alarm kit is simpler than some rivals, with a fairly basic smartphone app. But it comes from a trusted brand and, unlike most other systems, includes a wireless external siren for mounting on an outside wall. The system can be expanded with more sensors, motion detectors and cameras, and a key benefit is how the devices have a 1km (0.62 mile) wireless range – far greater than that of Yale's rivals. Like Eufy, Yale offers an optional subscription. Called Secure Plan, this costs £9 a month and adds cellular backup to the alarm system, where it uses the mobile phone network to stay online if your broadband goes off. The plan also unlocks a system where up to three emergency contacts receive an automated call when your alarm is triggered; although, they are not contacted by a human, as with professionally monitored systems. Subscribing opens up cloud storage for Yale's cameras, too, and enables an AI-powered system for differentiating between the motion of people, pets, vehicles and package deliveries. Granted, it's a good-value package (and you get six months' free with some purchases), but Yale's system uses local storage by default, so paying the fee isn't strictly necessary. Without it, you still have a fully functional security system. Blink is another security system that runs without a subscription, but here things work a little differently. Blink cameras on their own require a cloud storage subscription, since they don't save footage locally. However, this changes if you also buy the Blink Sync Module 2, which costs £40 (or is often bundled with cameras for a discount) and acts as a hub for connecting multiple cameras and a doorbell. It also has a microSD card slot, into which you can fit up to 256GB of local storage – and avoid paying the monthly fee for saving footage in the cloud. Blink plans start at just £2.50 a month and unlock extra features, like improved live streaming, video sharing, photo capture and cloud storage, but paying isn't a necessity like it is with Ring, the other Amazon-owned security company. The pros and cons of not paying for a home security subscription Pros: Avoid ongoing costs (which also often increase over time) You control your recordings; no uploading to third-party servers Reduced feeling of being locked into a product ecosystem Keeps things simple, avoiding superfluous features Cons: No professional monitoring Misses out on extra functionality Limits your hardware choices Removes cellular backup (where available) Is paying a home security system subscription worth it? This depends on your budget and your security requirements. If all you want is a video doorbell on the front door and a security camera keeping an eye on your garden or drive, you'll be fine installing the devices and having them save footage locally. This even works if you want to build a larger system – perhaps even a whole home security platform with cameras, door sensors, sirens and motion detectors – if your primary goal is to be alerted to motion, then have that motion recorded. In this scenario, a subscription for extra features might not be worth it to you, especially if you pick Eufy products that have their own on-board storage and artificial intelligence. Subscriptions become worthwhile if you want more than these basics. If you want cloud storage, then paying a subscription is the only option, since companies don't offer this service for free. Similarly, if you want cellular backup for your Yale system, AI smarts from Blink, video storage from Ring or professional monitoring from Simplisafe and Verisure, then a subscription could be worth it.
Daily Mail
35 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
We must have transparency over migrants and crime. The politicians who lose control of our borders cannot be allowed to hide the consequences from us
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, looking more beleaguered and sounding less convincing than ever, said yesterday that the police should routinely reveal the nationality and asylum status of those charged with criminal offences. New legal guidance, she promised, would shortly be issued for police forces to provide greater 'transparency'. Not for the first time, Labour was rushing to follow in the footsteps of Nigel Farage 's Reform party. Only 24 hours before, as part of Reform's 'Britain is lawless' campaign, Farage had called for the ethnicity of suspects charged with rape and sexual assaults to be made public. Now Cooper was in a hurry to oblige.
Daily Mail
35 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
What a Hiroshima-sized blast would have done to LONDON: Unseen government diagrams imagine carnage if nuke was used on UK in 1945
Imagine a very different end to the Second World War. Instead of the US dropping the world's first atomic bombs on Japan, it was the Japanese hammering London with the devastating new weapon. In 1945, that is more or less what was considered by the British government, which was freshly in the hands of Labour's Clement Attlee after his triumph over Winston Churchill at that year's election. Official diagrams envisaged the impact of atomic bomb blasts in London, with the force described as being equivalent to what was unleashed on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and August 9, 1945. One of the two maps - recently seen by the Mail at the National Archives in Kew, West London - imagines the impact of a bomb detonated over Trafalgar Square. It said everything within 1,000 yards of the epicentre - so all of Whitehall, Covent Garden and St James' Palace - would be totally wiped out. Then, there would have been damage 'beyond repair' to areas within a distance of one mile - including the rest of Westminster, Buckingham Palace, the BBC 's headquarters and the British Museum. The likes of St Paul's Cathedral, Smithfield Market, Victoria Station and Marble Arch were within the third ring up to 1.5 miles away, described as 'uninhabitable without major repairs'. The final ring - up to 2.5 miles away - includes King's Cross Station, the Bank of England, Tower Bridge, Battersea Power Station and Regent's Park. Everything in this area would have been 'uninhabitable without first aid repairs', the report's authors said. The two maps feature as part of a file that also includes a report titled, 'An Investigation of the Effects of the Atomic Bombs Dropped at Hiroshima and Nagasaki', which was compiled after an official visit to the ruined cities by British officials. The other map gives a wider view, showing the impact of five blasts over London. Again the explosions are 'as at Hiroshima and Nagasaki'. As well as the bomb over Trafalgar Square, four others are depicted detonating over Poplar in East London; in Primrose Hill above Regent's Park; in Hammersmith in West London and in Tooting in South London. Collectively, they would have rendered nearly all of Central London a flattened wasteland. Areas such as Lambeth in the south of the capital would have been unscathed, but the borough's inhabitants would have faced having to grapple with a likely total breakdown in law and order and a collapse of the emergency services. Although the official report - which was compiled by the British Mission to Japan - is dated December 1945, the maps themselves were made the following year, as an Ordnance Survey label on them shows. The key on the map detailing how everything up to a distance of 1,000 yards from the epicentre of the blast would have been 'demolished' The foreword to the report optimistically concluded: 'His Majesty's Government consider that a full understanding of the consequences of the new form of attack may assist the United Nations Organisation in its task of securing the control of atomic energy for the common good and in abolishing the use of weapons of mass destruction.' The British mission included scientists and senior officials in the Home Office, War Office and Air Ministry. It laid out in horrifying detail the devastation wrought by 'Little Boy' and 'Fat Man' - the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by US forces. In Hiroshima, the blast - at 8.15am on August 6, 1945 - obliterated everything within the surrounding square mile, killing around 80,000 people in the blink of an eye. At least 30,000 more died from their devastating injuries in the 48 hours that followed. A total of five square miles of the city were consumed by fire storms, and the blast obliterated 90 per cent of Hiroshima's structures. The police, fire and ambulance services were all virtually wiped out, with survivors left to fend for themselves before help arrived from further afield. The attack on Nagasaki came on August 9, after Japan refused to surrender despite the carnage in Hiroshima. The key for the second map, explaining the colours detailing the respective levels of destruction The device - Fat Man - was carried by the B-29 bomber named Bockscar. It claimed at least 50,000 more lives and wiped out a third of the city. Japan finally agreed to the Allies' terms of surrender on August 14. The British Mission's report estimated that, for several reasons, the impact of a blast like the ones that hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be less devastating in London. Because of factors such as population density, the presence of well-built houses offering more protection and better rescue services than in Japan, the death toll from a single blast is estimated at 50,000. But the report chillingly added: 'The comparable figure for the German V2 rocket was about 15 dead'. The authors continued: 'The figure of 50,000 dead from one atomic bomb in average British urban conditions is probably the most important which this report contains. 'It shows that much of the most serious effect of the atomic bomb is in producing casualties. 'The problem of providing against and of treating gamma ray casualties is exceptionally grave and difficult.' The explosion of a bomb of the power of those used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have wiped out around 30,000 houses in a British city. Between 50,000 and 100,000 more properties would be rendered temporarily uninhabitable. The report went on: 'Thus a total of roughly 400,000 people might be rendered temporarily homeless'. It was not until the 1970s - when the risk of conflict with the Soviet Union was high - that the Government's public information campaign advising what to do in the event of a nuclear attack was released. The 'Protect and Survive' series told Britons to prepare a 'fall-out room' in which they would need to store enough food and water for two weeks. They were also advised to bring the likes of kitchen utensils, a portable radio, toilet paper, a bucket and a first aid kit. Shortly after the leaflet was released, expert critics said the advice would not be helpful. One said the protective measures were 'illusory' because people would immediately 'panic' in the event of a nuclear attack. The Protect and Survive campaign also included newspaper adverts, radio broadcasts and public information films. Whilst the campaign had been intended for use only in an emergency, it came to public attention in a series of newspaper articles. The Government then decided to publish the leaflet in May 1980 and the public information films were leaked to the BBC and anti-nuclear group CND. The 1984 BBC drama Threads depicted the horrifying consequences of a nuclear attack on Britain. Threads was watched by seven million people on BBC Two and won four Baftas, but it also left many viewers traumatised. The gruesome details - the shocking burns, the radiation sickness, the obliteration of buildings following the imagined attack on the city of Sheffield - were a constant presence in the drama. Dozens of those who watched were so shaken that they called the charity Samaritans for support.
