Economy

When I was a child, we lived in a two-up, two-down terraced slum in Walthamstow, East London with bombsites at the back. My father made me a doll’s house by dividing a box into four for the rooms. One year when we hadn’t any coal, I watched my doll’s house, disassembled, burning in the living room grate. I couldn’t grumble. I had asthma and for the first couple of years of my life there was no NHS. Just being alive was a bloody miracle. I rather admired the glittering ice patterns on the inside of my bedroom window.  I was cold then, and I am cold now. I had hoped things might improve in the

Could Liz Kendall turn out to be the most significant figure of Keir Starmer’s government, and a Chancellor in the making? When I wrote on the Work and Pensions Secretary’s proposed reforms here in November, I was sceptical that Labour really had much intention of pushing through benefits cuts, not least because the party had spent the past 14 years shouting ‘austerity’ every time the Tories so much as proposed to cut a bean from the benefits bill. Starmer himself has accused the previous government of “turning on the poorest in our society” when it proposed to end the temporary £20 weekly bonus added to benefits during Covid. Kendall has gained

Yesterday it was a court ruling to invalidate licences for oil and gas extraction in the Rosebank and Jackdaw fields. This morning comes another perverse consequence of Britain’s legally-binding net zero target. Environment Secretary Steve Reed is to announce that he intends 9 per cent of farmland in England to be taken out of production in order to help achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050. This continues a rewilding programme set up by the last government. From the point of view of achieving the net zero target it makes perfect sense; in fact it would make even more sense to take 100 per cent of farmland out of production

Ed Miliband seems to have gone missing since Rachel Reeves announced her ambition for a third runway at Heathrow yesterday. Just before he disappeared, he mumbled that ‘of course’ he wouldn’t be resigning over the issue – in spite of threatening to do just that when he was climate secretary in Gordon Brown’s government. But then who needs Ed Miliband to thwart government growth plans when we have the courts to do it for him? This morning, Lord Ericht in the Scottish Court of Session hammered another great brass nail into the coffin of the North Sea. He ruled that licences granted to extract oil and gas from the Rosebank

Why is it that some lies get endlessly repeated without ever being challenged, even though they are quite obviously wrong? In her pro-growth speech today, the Chancellor Rachel Reeves asserted: ‘There is no trade-off between economic growth and net zero’. Government ministers, advisers and many others have been saying such things for years – and hardly ever do they get properly challenged. To pretend that no such trade-off exists is foolish It is easy to see why, for political reasons, you might want to argue that committing Britain to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050 will not make us poorer and indeed might make us wealthier. You want to

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) are under pressure to reduce red tape in the financial sector. “We’ve told our regulators they need to regulate for growth, not just for risk,” the Chancellor Rachel Reeves has said. But the idea that tweaking regulations will somehow unlock growth is a fallacy. The idea that tweaking regulations will somehow unlock growth is a fallacy The problem is that these ungoverned and rogue regulators are manned by second-rate lawyers and special interest groups who present their ideas as mainstream. They have never facilitated growth and have created a labyrinth of rules that suffocate the UK’s financial services industry, serving