Latest news with #CoffeeHouseShots
Spectator
7 days ago
- Business
- Spectator
Mel Stride: ‘what I would do differently'
Last night, Rachel Reeves was the headline act at the Mansion House dinner. In her speech, she made the case that 'Britain is open for business' and that we must 'stay competitive in the global economy'. Critics would say it is hard to claim to be open for business while having also overseen a £25 billion national insurance tax raid that is now known to be costing thousands of jobs. She began by stressing that, despite what recent reporting might suggest, she is 'okay' – the economic indicators, however, suggest that the economy is far from okay. Just this morning, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) reported that inflation hit 3.6 per cent in the year to June – well above the 2 per cent target. On this special edition of Coffee House Shots, James Heale and Michael Simmons are joined by shadow chancellor Mel Stride, who offers his prescription for Britain's ailing economy. He outlines how he would have conducted the speech at Mansion House, how he will spend the recess with business leaders of all descriptions in 'listening mode', and why – when it comes to the big institutions such as the OBR, the Treasury and the Bank of England – he 'isn't ruling anything out'. Produced by Oscar Edmondson.
Spectator
15-07-2025
- Business
- Spectator
Reeves's Mansion House delusion
Rachel Reeves wants Britain to become a shareholder democracy. In her annual Mansion House speech to the City's bankers, accountants and financial advisors, she said 'for too long, we have presented investment in too negative a light'. She's right. The Chancellor meant that regulation – which she called the 'boot on the neck of business' – has led to too many scary warnings about the risks of investing and not enough talking up of the benefits. She's referring to the legally mandated 'investment carries risk' type messages you hear on any investment adverts – including on our own Coffee House Shots podcast. Loosening these regulations, she said, could increase investing and lead to 'a Britain that is better off'. She wants Brits to buy the dip and take advantage of our undervalued market as money looks to relocate from uncertainty from America. These changes will, I'm sure, make our lives less annoying. Anyone who doesn't know investments can go down as well as up should probably not be let loose on the markets. But they seem unlikely – on their own at least – to unleash the 'big bang' of prosperity and tax revenues the Chancellor badly wants and badly needs. Her wider message was that 'Britain is open for business', and that we must 'stay competitive in the global economy'. But critics would say it's hard to claim to be open for business, whilst also having overseen a £25 billion national insurance tax raid that we now know is costing thousands of jobs. What's more, her reforms to the non-dom regime and the wealth taxes currently being floated have led to forecasts of some 16,500 millionaires fleeing the country this year: worse than anywhere else in the world. To win those people and their taxes back, she needs to go further than cutting investment red tape – welcome as that will be to the financial industry. She needs to go further than her 'Leeds reforms' that aim to 'rewire the financial system'. Her 'concierge service' that aims to make it easier for the rich to relocate to our shores won't be enough Her problem came when she remade her 'ironclad' commitment to her 'non-negotiable' fiscal rules. For if she is to meet them, she now undoubtedly has to look at raising taxes. If she is serious about not taxing 'working people', then the only place she can look to squeeze further is business. That's likely to take the form of targeted increases to business rates for larger firms with some relief for the smaller ones. But on top of the tax rises she inflicted on business last autumn and on top of the costs her colleague Angela Rayner's employments rights bill is likely to inflict, it's hard to see how a few more of us taking a punt on the Post Office or piling money into BT will unlock the growth this chancellor so badly needs.
Spectator
12-07-2025
- Politics
- Spectator
Amanda Spielman on the SEND row and Labour's Ofsted blind spot
As Labour looks to get a grip on public spending, one rebellion gives way to another with the changes to the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) system threatening to become welfare round two. On this week's Saturday edition of Coffee House Shots, Lucy Dunn is joined by The Spectator's Michael Simmons and former Ofsted chief Amanda Spielman to explore what the government is planning – and why so many Labour MPs are worried. Is the system failing the children it's meant to support, or simply costing too much? And can Labour afford to fix it without tearing itself apart? Listen for: Amanda on the unintended consequences of the 2014 SEND overhaul; why teaching assistants may not be the silver bullet schools think they are; and Labour's mess over Ofsted. Michael Simmons also outlines the fiscal timebomb threatening local authorities; the cultural shift post-Covid that's changed how we approach education; and why one Labour insider is warning, 'If you thought cutting support for disabled adults was bad, wait till you try it with children.' Produced by Oscar Edmondson.
Spectator
10-07-2025
- Politics
- Spectator
The unstoppable Angela Rayner
There is the small matter of the Macron–Starmer press conference today, at which the Prime Minister will hope to announce a new migration deal with France. But we thought we would dedicate today's podcast to Angela Rayner, with some MPs thinking that the answer to Labour's woes could be to 'give it Ange until the end of the season'. As Tim Shipman reports in the magazine, she has undergone quite the political transformation – keeping her head down and away from incoming fire. Downing Street is taking her increasingly seriously. Is she the new John Prescott – or even the next Labour leader? Also on the podcast today: Jake Berry, former Conservative party chairman, defected to Reform last night. But how much of a coup is that really for Nigel's gang? Oscar Edmondson speaks to Tim Shipman and James Heale. Produced by Oscar Edmondson. For tickets to our Coffee House Shots live podcast next week, go to:
Spectator
01-07-2025
- Health
- Spectator
Labour MPs need a reality check on Britain's ballooning benefits bill
'No one votes Labour to cut the welfare state. People vote Labour to grow the welfare state. That's the role of the party.' That's what John McTernan, Labour strategist, said on Coffee House Shots last week. He's absolutely correct, of course. But the ballooning cost of the benefits bill means that Labour now faces an uncomfortable decision, for which many of its MPs seem ill prepared. The total cost for Personal Independence Payments (PIP) alone is expected to reach £35 billion by the end of this decade, up from £16 billion in 2019-20 and £26.5 billion in 2024-25. The total benefits bill, including the state pension, universal credit and other benefits, could hit £324 billion by 2030. Labour has few options for balancing the books Yet Labour has few options for balancing the books. They've already hit the country once with a devastating tax raid which has left the economy reeling. Gilt yields are well above where they were during the mini-budget. But even the modest proposals to reduce the benefits bill have been watered down, given the inability of scores of Labour MPs to stomach a marginal deceleration – not a reversal – of benefits spending. As Richard Burgon, MP for Leeds East, put it: 'The Government shouldn't be balancing the books on the backs of disabled people.' This, for some Labour MPs, is a point of principle. But what do Burgon and his colleagues really believe is behind the growth of PIP? Is it just that we are getting older? Sicker? That the pandemic changed things? Or that underfunding of the NHS is leaving people suffering with longer-term conditions? Certainly, Britain appears to be sicker than in previous years. And with the NHS in the state that it is, it's probably inevitable that there would be uptick in bad health. But are we really supposed to believe that, for example, the number of people with Tourettes has climbed three fold: 1,661 people with the condition now receive PIP, including 857 who receive the mobility part of enhanced PIP (making them eligible for Motability), this is up from 545 in January 2019. Or that the number of people receiving PIP for sleep apnea has gone from 429 to 3,001? Or that there should really be people receiving PIP for writer's cramp (seven), acne (14) and factitious disorders (18)? Or is it the case that the almost four-fold increase in the number of people receiving PIP for eczema is partially attributable to the very normal human phenomenon of responding to incentives? If it becomes easier to access free money, it seems likely that more people will, shockingly, take that free money. Is it perhaps the case that, given how few PIP assessments now take place in person, some less than scrupulous fellow citizens and residents feel more confident in emphasising the disabling effects of, say, their tennis elbow, or obsessive compulsive disorder? And that, perhaps, the Department for Work and Pensions is less able to identify the genuinely needy and those gaming the system? Maybe this isn't the case. Maybe there is a reasonable explanation to all of this. And the various benefit claims, broken down in the Taxpayers' Alliance's benefits dashboard, can all be explained away. But for any Labour MPs still planning on voting the government's already diluted plans down, it's surely time for them to advocate for an urgent public inquiry on what is driving the devastating surge in sleep apnea across our island.
