If you think this government is pro-business, let me sell you Tower Bridge
As the government continues to develop its response to Trump’s tariffs and the changing global economic order, the Prime Minister’s muddled thinking is troubling me.
We now know that he wants to simultaneously “unleash” British business whilst “sheltering it from the storm,” like a parent who implores his child to “run, but not yet, and not too far.”
The PM’s instincts are clear; he doesn’t make a secret of his desire to build a more “active state” and as I noted in this column yesterday he seems certain to view this moment of economic and geopolitical rewiring as proof of the wisdom of his interventionist philosophy.
The problem at the heart of the Starmer contradiction (wanting to unleash and shelter entrepreneurship) is that, respectfully, he has no idea what he’s talking about. This is not a glib criticism. Painfully few of our politicians and leaders understand the reality of building, growing and running a business and Starmer is no exception. While he talks a good talk on deregulation his approach is more likely that of a management consultant whose fees end up larger than whatever is saved by their clever reorganisation.
While some quangos may be clipped, the Starmer government is busy launching new ones to take their place. We learn this week of plans for a new “equal pay regulatory and enforcement unit” – a body that could work with trade unions to pursue the increasingly absurd notion of “indirect discrimination” – a legal device that has bankrupt Birmingham council after they paid (mostly male) refuse collectors more than (mostly female) school catering staff. The same device has left retailers on the hook for millions as judges rule that (mostly female) shop-floor workers should be paid the same as (mostly male) warehouse operatives.
This is all in addition to the onerous trade-union backed Employment Rights Bill that heaps damaging new regulations and costs on businesses. How is any of this meant to unleash anything other than employment lawyers?
If Starmer meant – or even understood – what he said about being pro-business, he would put an end to the red tape and cut taxes while he was at it; corporation tax, dividend tax, capital gains tax, employment taxes – a reduction in any (let alone all) would give British businesses the boost they so desperately need in the face of a growing financial storm.
Unfortunately, Starmer is offering only more rules and yes, more quangos.