The Chancellor wants your money and doesn't mind how she gets it
The nominal reasoning is that the Government wishes to encourage people to invest in stocks and shares. Yet research by the stockbroker AJ Bell suggests that only one fifth of savers would make such a move, with others potentially putting their money in taxed bank accounts, or spending it.
It is hard not to suspect that the actual rationale is less the desire to allocate capital via shares rather than loans (with a greater return accruing to savers in exchange for a greater exposure to risk) and more the urge to drive activity into areas where it will face greater exposure to taxation.
As the saga of the welfare vote demonstrated, this Government has little ability to force through the sorts of cuts to spending required to restore sense to Britain's finances. It is therefore likely to seek further tax revenues, and to do so in convoluted ways as a result of its pledges made to avoid taxes on 'working people'.
The clear direction of travel is towards greater taxation of assets, and in the process to even greater disincentives for the sort of investment needed to raise Britain's chronically low productivity.
Indeed, Labour MPs on the Left are already quite open about their desire for a direct tax on wealth. While Ms Reeves has so far resisted prompts from the likes of Angela Rayner to implement this policy, there is no guarantee that she will do so for the remainder of this Parliament – or, indeed, that her possible successors will do so.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
8 minutes ago
- The Independent
Pound and gilts slump amid doubts over Chancellor's future
The value of the pound and long-term Government bonds slumped sharply after Sir Keir Starmer failed to back Chancellor Rachel Reeves. Ms Reeves was visibly tearful in the House of Commons over a 'personal issue', as her position and Government credibility faced scrutiny after a U-turn on welfare plans. The U-turn on the Welfare Bill is now expected to stop the Labour Government from securing almost £5 billion worth of savings as it seeks to balance the books. Financial markets were knocked as a result, with the value of the pound and gilts dropping noticeably as the Prime Minister spoke in Parliament. The pound slid by 1.14% to 1.358 against the US dollar on Wednesday. Sterling had risen to a fresh three-year high against the dollar on Tuesday. The currency also fell by 0.8% to 1.155 against the euro, striking its lowest level since April. Meanwhile, the yield on Government bonds, called gilts, jumped in the face of concerns among investors. The yield on 10-year gilts rose by 0.17 percentage points to 4.63%, while the 30-year gilt rose by 0.22 percentage points to 5.45%. Both of these were the sharpest increases since US President Donald Trump's tariff plans shook up financial markets in April. Gilt yields move counter to the value of the bonds, meaning that their prices were lower on Wednesday because of the change. The rise in yields also means it will be more expensive for the Government to pay off debts, putting further pressure on its finances. Kathleen Brooks, research director at XTB, said: 'UK bond yields have taken a step higher as we progress through Wednesday, and Prime Minister's Questions has not eased concern that the bond vigilantes are circling. UK bonds are tanking today. 'If yields continue to rise at this pace for the next few days, the PM and Chancellor will have to decide if they want to have a sensible fiscal policy whereby public sector debt is reined in, or whether they want to please the Labour backbenches, who don't seem worried by rising debt levels and forget that we are in a new era, where bond investors can shun sovereign debt in favour of less risky, less indebted corporate debt. 'Overall, this could be the start of another fiscal crisis for the UK.'
The Independent
8 minutes ago
- The Independent
‘Premature' to decide whether MI5 should face contempt probe, judges rule
MI5 could still face contempt of court proceedings over incorrect evidence provided in a bid for an injunction against the BBC pending the outcome of an investigation, judges at the High Court have said. In 2022, then-attorney general Suella Braverman went to the High Court to stop the broadcaster airing a programme that would name a man who has allegedly abused two women and is a covert human intelligence source. An injunction was made in April 2022 to prevent the corporation disclosing information likely to identify the man, referred to only as 'X', though Mr Justice Chamberlain said the BBC could still air the programme and the key issues, without identifying him. But at a hearing earlier this year, the London court was told that part of the written evidence provided by MI5 was false. Lawyers for the BBC told the court the 'low threshold' for launching contempt proceedings against MI5 and a number of individuals, for not being fully transparent with the court, had been met. In a decision on Wednesday, the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr said that a further investigation should be carried out and that it would be 'premature to reach any conclusions on whether to initiate contempt proceedings against any individual'. The senior judge said that the new investigation should be carried out on behalf of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. Baroness Carr, sitting with Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Chamberlain, also said: 'The investigations carried out by MI5 to date suffer from serious procedural deficiencies. 'Their conclusions cannot presently be relied on.' The written witness evidence, now accepted to have been false, said the Security Service had maintained its policy of neither confirming nor denying (NCND) the identities of intelligence sources. However, MI5 disclosed X's status to a BBC reporter, but then said it had kept to the NCND policy. Lawyers on behalf of MI5 apologised earlier this year and carried out two investigations, which concluded the false evidence was given due to a series of mistakes with no deliberate attempt by any staff member to mislead. In Wednesday's 26-page ruling, the three judges said they were not 'satisfied' with the investigations or their conclusions. They added: 'It is regrettable that MI5's explanations to this court were given in a piecemeal and unsatisfactory way — and only following the repeated intervention of the court.' In the programme about X, the BBC alleged the intelligence source was a misogynistic neo-Nazi who attacked his girlfriend, referred to by the pseudonym Beth, with a machete. Beth is bringing related legal action in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), with the judges finding on Wednesday that the specialist tribunal – which investigates allegations against the UK intelligence services – was also misled. Baroness Carr later said: 'Whilst we accept the genuineness of the apologies proffered on behalf of MI5, the fact remains that this case has raised serious issues. 'MI5 gave false evidence to three courts. This was compounded by inadequate attempts to explain the circumstances.' Following the ruling, MI5 director-general Sir Ken McCallum said: 'I wish to repeat my full and unreserved apology for the errors made in these proceedings. 'We take our duty to provide truthful, accurate and complete information with the utmost seriousness. 'Resolving this matter to the court's satisfaction is of the highest priority for MI5 and we are committed to co-operating fully with the Investigatory Powers Commissioner's Office and the court. 'MI5 is now embarked on a programme of work to learn all lessons and implement changes to ensure this does not happen again. This programme will build in external challenge and expertise – with independent assurance to the Home Secretary on our progress. 'MI5's job is to keep the country safe. Maintaining the trust of the courts is essential to that mission.' A BBC spokesperson said: 'We are pleased this decision has been reached and that the key role of our journalist Daniel De Simone in bringing this to light has been acknowledged by the judges. 'We believe our journalism on this story has always been in the highest public interest.'
The Guardian
12 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Fears AI factcheckers on X could increase promotion of conspiracy theories
A decision by Elon Musk's X social media platform to enlist artificial intelligence chatbots to draft factchecks risks increasing the promotion of 'lies and conspiracy theories', a former UK technology minister has warned. Damian Collins accused Musk's firm of 'leaving it to bots to edit the news' after X announced on Tuesday that it would allow large language modelsto write community notes to clarify or correct contentious posts, before they are approved for publication by users. The notes have previously been written by humans. X said using AI to write factchecking notes – which sit beneath some X posts – 'advances the state of the art in improving information quality on the internet'. Keith Coleman, the vice president of product at X, said humans would review AI-generated notes and the note would appear only if people with a variety of viewpoints found it useful. 'We designed this pilot to be AI helping humans, with humans deciding,' he said. 'We believe this can deliver both high quality and high trust. Additionally we published a paper along with the launch of our pilot, co-authored with professors and researchers from MIT, University of Washington, Harvard and Stanford laying out why this combination of AI and humans is such a promising direction.' But Collins said the system was already open to abuse and that AI agents working on community notes could allow 'the industrial manipulation of what people see and decide to trust' on the platform, which has about 600 million users. It is the latest pushback against human factcheckers by US tech firms. Last month Google said user-created fact checks, including by professional factchecking organisations, would be deprioritised in its search results. It said such checks were 'no longer providing significant additional value for users'. In January, Meta announced it was scrapping human factcheckers in the US and would adopt its own community notes system on Instagram, Facebook and Threads. X's research paper outlining its new factchecking system criticised professional factchecking as often slow and limited in scale and said it 'lacks trust by large sections of the public'. AI-created community notes 'have the potential to be faster to produce, less effort to generate, and of high quality', it said. Human and AI-written notes would be submitted into the same pool and X users would vote for which were most useful and should appear on the platform. AI would draft 'a neutral well-evidenced summary', the research paper said. Trust in community notes 'stems not from who drafts the notes, but from the people that evaluate them,' it said. But Andy Dudfield, the head of AI at the UK factchecking organisation Full Fact, said: 'These plans risk increasing the already significant burden on human reviewers to check even more draft Notes, opening the door to a worrying and plausible situation in which Notes could be drafted, reviewed, and published entirely by AI without the careful consideration that human input provides.' Samuel Stockwell, a research associate at the Centre for Emerging Technology and Security at the Alan Turing Institute, said: 'AI can help factcheckers process the huge volumes of claims flowing daily through social media, but much will depend on the quality of safeguards X puts in place against the risk that these AI 'note writers' could hallucinate and amplify misinformation in their outputs. AI chatbots often struggle with nuance and context, but are good at confidently providing answers that sound persuasive even when untrue. That could be a dangerous combination if not effectively addressed by the platform.' Researchers have found that people perceived human-authored community notes as significantly more trustworthy than simple misinformation flags. An analysis of several hundred misleading posts on X in the run up to last year's presidential election found that in three-quarters of cases, accurate community notes were not being displayed, indicating they were not being upvoted by users. These misleading posts, including claims that Democrats were importing illegal voters and the 2020 presidential election was stolen, amassed more than 2bn views, according to the Centre for Countering Digital Hate.
