
British manufacturing could disappear for good under Labour
Sir Keir Starmer is gaslighting the great British public. The news that net zero taxes will be slashed for thousands of manufacturers in the long-overdue industrial strategy is of course to be wholeheartedly welcomed.
Yet, the idea that this means 'Britain is back and open for business,' as the Prime Minister declared last week, really is preposterous nonsense.
Perhaps, if Starmer extricated himself from the Westminster bubble even just for a few seconds, he may be able to spot something deeply troubling unfolding across the country on his watch: far from being open, Britain's industrial base is in grave danger of shutting down for good.
It's not as if it's happening gradually. The pace at which UK heavy industry is collapsing under the dead hand of Labour is truly extraordinary. Barely a day goes by without another major factory waving the white flag.
The latest casualty is Lindsey Oil Refinery in north-east Lincolnshire – one of the country's last remaining refineries and a vital regional employer, as my own father will attest to. The plant provided him with much-needed work in the late 1980s after he left the RAF.
With its parent company forced to call in the administrators on Monday morning, a facility that churns out nearly 5.5m tonnes of oil a year – equivalent to roughly about one tenth of the country's capacity – is now in the hands of a government-appointed special receiver.
At this rate, the Humber estuary and Teesside may soon be competing to become the country's biggest industrial graveyard as one-by-one, the big plants that dominate the east coast threaten to crumble into the North Sea.
In Hull, the owners of Vivergo, the UK's largest bioethanol plant, are threatening to pull the plug.
Further north in Redcar, the axe hangs over another big bioethanol producer, while barely a stone's throw away, the Olefins chemicals complex is scheduled for permanent closure. Among the largest of its kind, the site has been a feature of the Teesside skyline since it began operating in the late 1970s.
With Labour asleep at the wheel, it is no exaggeration to say that this Government could conceivably preside over the total disappearance of this country's manufacturing capabilities.
The North Sea oil and gas industry is surely past the point of no return. The future of other so-called foundational industries such as chemicals, cement, glass, paper, ceramics are all similarly bleak with catastrophic consequences for regional growth, national output, and our self-reliance. Every factory closure threatens to make us even more reliant on foreign imports.
It's not as if the Government has any answers, other than the usual hurried handouts. With Jonathan Reynolds reportedly willing to offer support to Lotus to persuade the struggling Chinese-owned carmaker not to shift production to the US, subsidies are at risk of becoming the default solution for ministers bereft of proper ideas any time a fire needs putting out.
But history tells us that's never a real solution. Lotus may yet stage a miraculous recovery, but this is a company that has survived for years on handouts amid a tortuous battle to make money. Most of this has come in the form of generous loans from its owners running into the hundreds of millions of pounds, but it has also been the recipient of government funding on several occasions.
Taxpayers are entitled to ask why they should have to keep picking up the bill whenever a company is in trouble.
In the case of Lindsey Oil Refinery, its owners are facing calls for an official inquiry after they were 'unable' to answer questions about its finances, energy minister Michael Shanks said.
Lotus's latest issues, meanwhile, are largely the result of US tariffs, and the bioethanol sector says it will be unable to withstand the onslaught of 1.4bn litres of duty-free ethanol allowed under the UK-US trade deal.
Ultimately, the responsibility for a crisis as serious as this has to lie with those in power. It is the consequence of a lethal cocktail of long-term neglect, complacency, short-termism and muddled decision-making.
Labour's long-awaited Industrial Strategy will provide some relief – but only some. A reduction in green levies will be meaningful for many manufacturers, but for a great number it is a case of too little, too late.
If Sir Keir really wanted to protect British industry and commerce, he would temper the green crusade of his fanatical Energy Secretary, which almost seems deliberately designed to put swathes of perfectly viable companies out of business just to satisfy the militant activists at Greenpeace and Just Stop Oil.
The plight of Lindsey is a stark reminder of the folly of over-burdening companies with environmental costs.
In corporate filings, the company talks glowingly about its embrace of eco-friendly initiatives such as LED lighting, electric cars, and renewable energy. It even felt compelled to swap face-to-face meetings for zoom calls in the name of saving the planet. One wonders whether the plant may have fared better if management had been less distracted by box-ticking green initiatives.
But the Prime Minister is weak, as proven by the horribly one-sided trade agreement he returned from Washington with. Starmer's deal with Trump sold Britain's ethanol makers down the river.
One thing that's for certain is that repeated handouts are unsustainable. Somebody needs to get a grip on the tsunami of issues – not just green taxes but other energy costs, along with reams of red tape, and National Insurance rises – that threaten to drown businesses.
Starmer faces a choice: find a way to allow more businesses to survive without taxpayer money or allow a slew of failing companies to shut down and accept that the foundations of the economy must change.
The current approach is neither one nor the other. It harks back to the days of British Leyland – but in some ways it's worse. At least then the policy of nationalising everything was deliberate. In the absence of anything remotely coherent under the bumbling duo of Starmer and Reeves, the flurry of interventionism seems almost entirely accidental.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Auto Car
17 minutes ago
- Auto Car
Why the UK's car factories have suffered for years – and how to fix them
Close The current UK government is proving one of most automotive-friendly in years, winning plaudits from the industry for its successful haggling over US tariffs, loosening of the ZEV mandate without a disruptive rewrite, and now for a new industrial strategy that puts automotive right at its heart. One of the hopes the government expressed within the strategy document is that UK vehicle manufacturing output can climb again, from a paltry 905,233 cars, vans, trucks and buses last year to 1.3 million by 2035.


Spectator
23 minutes ago
- Spectator
Northern Ireland is still paying a heavy price for Brexit
This week heralds the arrival in Northern Ireland of yet more overregulation, bureaucratic overreach, and political incompetence. No, Keir Starmer isn't making an unannounced visit to Belfast. From this month, many thousands of food products imported from Great Britain to Northern Ireland will have to display warnings on their packaging highlighting that these goods are not to be brought into the European Union. The reason why is essentially a bungled Brexit deal for which thousands of business – and millions of customers – will pay the price. It is yet another reason for British firms to stop doing business in Northern Ireland The Windsor Framework – the result of the UK's Northern Ireland-focused post-Brexit legal agreement with the EU – ensured that Northern Ireland remained within the EU single market for goods. This meant that products can flow freely throughout the island as no hard border exists between Northern Ireland and the Republic. At least that's what was promised in theory. In reality, this soft border has made trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland increasingly difficult. Confusing and unworkable regulations have stymied the flow of goods to Northern Ireland as checks on arrival take an increasingly long time, packaging requirements are different, and costs are increased. From October 2023, meat products entering Northern Ireland had to be labelled as being 'Not for EU' in order to ensure they weren't being sold in the Republic of Ireland; these rules were expanded to include dairy products from October 2024. And now, from this month, the scope of these regulations will be drastically increased as the Windsor Framework's implementation reaches its final phase. Packaged fruit, vegetables, and herbs; fresh, frozen, and processed fish; honey; eggs; chilled, frozen, or shelf-stable composite products, such as ready meals and jars of sauce; all will be subject to new rules which change their packaging to ensure no Pot Noodle bound for Belfast is sold south of the border. This matters because it is yet another reason for British companies to stop doing business in Northern Ireland. As Stuart Machin, the CEO of Marks & Spencer, explained on Friday, this regulatory expansion just adds 'yet another layer of unnecessary costs and red tape for food retailers like M&S.' Machin went on to state that over a thousand more M&S products will require alternate packaging specifically tailored for Northern Ireland, while an additional four hundred products will have to undergo extra checks in what has become known as the 'Red Lane' – the customs channel for goods deemed at risk of entering the EU. In short, Machin said, it's 'bureaucratic madness'. All of these additional regulations in Northern Ireland undermine the idea of the Union, dissuading British businesses from offering goods and services in a constituent country of the United Kingdom. It has had a measurable impact, too, as the Office for National Statistics found recently. Between 2020 – the final year before the Northern Ireland Protocol on the Brexit withdrawal agreement came into effect – and the start of this year, the percentage of retail, wholesale, and car repair businesses in Great Britain which sold goods into Northern Ireland had decreased from 17.5 per cent to only 12.4 per cent; the percentage of manufacturing businesses which sold to Northern Ireland decreased from 20.1 per cent to 12.9 per cent. The issue of the effectual trade border in the Irish Sea is a politically contentious one in Northern Ireland. It highlights the difference in treatment of people in Northern Ireland compared with the rest of the United Kingdom – raising questions about whether the initial idea of Brexit as 'taking back control' ever materialised. Jim Allister, a Traditional Unionist Voice (TUV) MP, and one of the fiercest critics of the Windsor Framework, said that British businesses 'will have to play by EU rules to trade within their own country. That's a fundamental breach of sovereignty.' I spoke to another elected representative from the TUV about the new rules, who decried them as little more than 'ridiculous and unnecessary bureaucracy forced upon us', highlighting that 'Northern Ireland did not get the Brexit the United Kingdom voted for as a nation'. Many of these issues could quite easily be solved if a sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) deal were to be signed between the UK and the EU; this would align the regulations between the two bodies and make trade easier. Naturally, however, this also goes against the ideals of what Brexit was portrayed to be, as while it doesn't exactly hand over our sovereignty on the issue, it does ensure the UK and EU are treading the same line. Labour announced a deal on this back in May, however this has yet to materialise and negotiations are, allegedly, still ongoing. Given Starmer's record of negotiating, it is not difficult to imagine how little say we might have over our own internal trade regulations as a result; the Prime Minister is no stranger to dismantling British sovereignty, as Chagos and Gibraltar show. In the mean time, internal trade within the United Kingdom is likely to get harder before it gets easier. If the past decade of politicians were supposed to be acting in favour of British interests, they are doing a good job of hiding it.


South Wales Guardian
24 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Welfare rebellion looms for Starmer despite concessions to Labour rebels
Ministers hope a partial U-turn will be enough to win over Labour rebels when MPs vote on welfare changes on Tuesday. The concessions included protecting people claiming personal independence payment (Pip) from changes due to come into effect in November 2026, and rowing back plans to cut the health-related element of universal credit. But backbench anger has continued to simmer, with a statement from Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall laying out the concessions on Monday receiving a negative response. Asked whether he was 'confident' that the concessions had done enough to secure passage of the Universal Credit and Personal Independent Payment Bill, disabilities minister Sir Stephen Timms would only tell Sky News: 'I certainly hope it passes.' Some 126 Labour MPs had previously signed a 'reasoned amendment' proposed by Treasury Committee chairwoman Dame Meg Hillier that would have stopped the legislation if approved. That rebellion appeared to have been averted after Dame Meg described concessions agreed on Friday as a 'workable compromise'. But in the Commons on Monday, she was one of several senior Labour figures to raise concerns about the Government's revised proposals, while another MP involved in negotiations, Debbie Abrahams, suggested ministers had rowed back on what had been agreed. A second amendment rejecting the Bill has been put forward by York Central MP Rachael Maskell with the backing of 138 disability groups, saying disabled people had 'yet to have agency in this process'. Ms Maskell's amendment is reported to have been signed by only around 35 Labour MPs – far fewer than the 83 needed to overturn Sir Keir's majority, but enough to deliver the largest rebellion of his premiership just before the first anniversary of Labour's election victory. Other sceptical MPs are expected to abstain on Tuesday, but could vote against the Bill next week if there are no further concessions. One of the chief concerns revolves around a review of Pip to be carried out by Sir Stephen and 'co-produced' with disabled people. His review is not expected to report until autumn next year, making it difficult to incorporate his findings into the Pip changes due to take place at the same time. Ms Abrahams suggested the timing meant the outcome of the review was 'pre-determined', while Sarah Owen, another select committee chairwoman, warned it could create a 'three-tier' benefit system. Groups including Disability Rights UK and Disabled People Against Cuts criticised the Government's claim that Sir Stephen's review would be 'co-produced' with them and urged Labour rebels to stand firm. They said: 'The Government have made it very clear that they are intent on slashing the support that so many disabled people rely on to work and live independently, no matter how many disabled people tell them what a harmful policy this will be.' Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said her party's MPs would vote against the proposals, describing them as 'not serious welfare reform' and saying ministers had 'watered down the small savings Labour were making'. The original proposals were expected to save £4.8 billion by 2030, but Ms Kendall revealed on Monday that the revised proposals were likely to save less than half that figure.