British state ‘overbearing' ministers say as they lay out industrial overhaul
In the Industrial Strategy published on Monday, the Government has backed UK industries it thinks have the potential to grow, with the aim of creating jobs and prosperity across Britain and Northern Ireland.
Artificial intelligence (AI), offshore wind power, and electric vehicle batteries are among the sectors which feature.
The strategy aims to help realise Labour's mission pledge to create sustained economic growth, which ministers want to see become the highest in the G7.
In the strategy's foreword, alongside Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds, Sir Keir said that 'when new opportunities present themselves, Britain often finds itself too regulated to take advantage'.
The ministers added: 'The result is a state that is both overbearing and feeble, poorly serving an economy that has become too reliant on one place, too exposed to global volatility and too sluggish to take advantage of transitions like the move to homegrown clean energy'.
They said that the strategy marks a 'new approach' and accounts for a decade-long plan to make Britain an attractive country to invest in.
The industrial strategy focuses on eight areas.
As well as the main strategy, on Monday the Government also published five separate 'sector plans', with more details on distinct policy areas: advanced manufacturing, creative industries, clean energy, digital and technology, and professional and business services.
Plans for the defence, financial services and life sciences sectors will come later.
The ministers said that the eight sectors had been 'identified as those best placed to create the wealth, jobs, and higher wages our country needs in every community'.
The five sector plans published on Monday emphasised the opportunities for growth across the regions and nations of the UK.
Edinburgh's robotics and agri-tech research hubs, and the space industry of the Oxford to Cambridge corridor featured among advanced manufacturing industries.
Onshore and offshore wind in south-west Wales, and heat pump producers in Northern Ireland feature in the clean energy sector plans, while Birmingham and Manchester's AI and cyber industries are highlighted in the plan for digital technology.
Several of the sector plans also address the changes which AI could have upon their industries.
The creative industries for example, will need to 'embrace new technology', one document says, insisting the Government will maximise the value of AI, while 'protecting and incentivising human creativity'.
The strategy includes details on several ways the Government wants to make it easier for firms to do business, such as tackling 'high industrial electricity costs' and reducing 'regulatory burdens'.
It also says ministers will 'remove planning barriers' and 'ensure our tax system supports growth'.
As part of the plans, energy costs for businesses will be cut by scrapping green levies to help them compete with foreign rivals.
From 2027, a new British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme will cut costs by up to £40 per megawatt hour for over 7,000 manufacturing firms by exempting them from levies on bills including the renewables obligation, feed-in tariffs and the capacity market.
The strategy comes after the latest figures indicated the economy shrank by 0.3% in April, the biggest monthly contraction in gross domestic product for a year-and-a-half, as businesses felt the impact of Donald Trump's tariffs and domestic pressure as a result of hikes to firms' national insurance contributions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
19 minutes ago
- Spectator
Brits don't want digital ID cards
The vexed issue of compulsory ID is, once again, on the cards. 'BritCard' is being billed as a 'progressive digital identity for Britain' by Labour Together, the think tank that put forward the scheme earlier this month. The digital ID card has been endorsed by dozens of Labour MPs, and No. 10 is said to be interested in the scheme, which is being touted as a way to crack down on illegal migration, rogue landlords and exploitative work. But concerns about privacy appear to have gone out the window. Tony Blair has been at the digital ID game a long time Perhaps it is no surprise that Keir Starmer's government appears to be warming to a rollout of digital ID cards. Tony Blair has been at the digital ID game a long time. He's argued it's necessary for public health, to save taxpayers' money and to control migration. According to Blair, 'digital ID is the disruption the UK desperately needs'. On the face of it, all this presents a puzzle. Britain's lack of appetite for compulsory ID is so marked that you could almost consider it a national characteristic, like a predilection for queuing or tea. Hence the pronouncement by Boris Johnson in 2004 that he would 'take that (ID) card out of my wallet and physically eat it in the presence of whatever emanation of the state has demanded that I produce it'. Boris is not alone in being so vehemently anti-ID cards. So why does the spectre of digital ID keep reappearing? Perhaps the answer lies with an informal Labour establishment working behind, or alongside, the government. Labour Together was set up in 2015 by a group of MPs – including Steve Reed, the now-Environment Minister – who wanted to get the party back into power. The BritCard report's lead author Kirsty Innes' previous job was at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change. In 2021, she wrote a report making the case for vaccine passports. It looks as if the reason digital ID won't go away is that, far from there being a groundswell of public demand for it, this half-hidden group really, really wants it. That might explain another puzzling thing: the extraordinarily poor quality of the public discourse about the subject. Take Labour Together's opening gambit in the report's foreword by MPs Jake Richards and Adam Jogee: 'This is your country. You have a right to be here. This will make your life easier. It is at the heart of the social contract'. Such disjointed statements belong more to a speech by a propagandist than a serious policy document. A vague appeal to nationalist sentiments is followed by the promise of 'convenience' which seems to accompany so much of the sales talk around the expansion of the digital state. The claim that digital ID somehow fulfils the social contract – the democratic concept which makes political authority conditional on respect for fundamental rights – is baffling. Baffling until you read further and discover the link is an attempt to convince the public that digital ID might be the solution to tackling illegal immigration. In a poll which forms the basis for the main argument, respondents were asked to what extent they would support digital ID if used by employers, landlords and public service providers to check a person's legal status. Some 80 per cent replied they would support such checks. And so Labour Together concluded that digital ID would be 'immensely popular'. But when asked about the 'most significant benefits' of digital ID, only 29 per cent thought it might deter illegal immigrants from coming to the UK or accessing public services. Meanwhile, 40 per cent feared that digital ID could be misused by government; and 23 per cent thought it could increase the black economy. The disparity illustrates something well known in the polling world: question is all. Frame something a particular way and you'll get one result; frame it another and you'll get something quite different. Polls have become tools of political persuasion. Too often, those commissioning them appear to have decided what outcome they want. As a result, they can be used to create the impression there's public support for something. That feeds into a lazy 'we might as well – everyone else is doing it' kind of thinking, a line children often use on their parents. Polly Toynbee, writing in the Guardian, uses it in her comment piece on the Labour Together proposal. We might as well agree to digital ID, she suggests, because privacy is already lost: 'Some will protest at the apparent loss of a romantic freedom, the right to vanish and start life anew, the call of the open road. But that's a fairytale, a fantasy of a bygone era. Everyone knows everything already'. Algorithms throw up personalised adverts, ergo, she concludes, 'better to control everything from one government-run base'. This kind of unthinking deflection makes civil liberty campaigners put their heads in their hands. Privacy became a basic right in modern democracies for a reason: why are policy people proposing to casually abandon a core principle? And why are they disregarding very real concerns about putting huge amounts of personal information into a leaky centralised system? Writing in the Daily Telegraph, Andrew Orlowski points out that One Login, which links our personal identification documents to other government bodies and third parties, has a terrible track record on data security. 'An insecure system has serious consequences,' he says. 'It not only puts individuals at risk of identity theft and impersonation, but also makes defrauding the government much easier…An ID system like One Login is where criminal gangs would go first, and BritCard will forcibly enrol you into it'. Politicians and policy wonks throwing lines out until they finally get a bite from enough of the public won't do. In a functioning democracy, public reasoning has to be of a certain standard if it is to lead to workable policies underpinned by genuine public consent. Shouting 'yay! Disruption!', as Blair appears to, won't cut it – nor will Toynbee's absurd claim that digital ID might help see off Nigel Farage. Radical departures from core values need proper consideration to ensure they serve the common good, not partisan interests. The Home Affairs Committee has launched an inquiry into the potential benefits and risks of digital ID. Let's hope that, as the parliamentary body charged with the scrutiny of domestic affairs, it will take a long hard look at both principles and consequences. The truth is that Brits don't want, or need, ID cards.
Daily Record
24 minutes ago
- Daily Record
Macron labels Trump's Iran air strikes 'illegal', pressures Starmer to take a stand
Emmanuel Macron has hit out at Donald Trump's air strikes on Iran, branding them 'illegal' and deepening the row over whether the US action broke international law French President Emmanuel Macron has strongly condemned the US air strikes on Iran, deeming them "illegal" and fuelling the debate over whether the American action violated international law. Macron stated that while targeting nuclear facilities posing a threat may be seen as "legitimate", the recent strikes by the US and Israel lacked a valid legal basis. Macron's comments came as UK Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer and senior government officials refrained from explicitly endorsing or condemning US President Donald Trump's decision, despite growing pressure for the Prime Minister to take a clear stance. The UK Prime Minister had been cautioned by Attorney General Lord Hermer that participating in a US-led attack could put Britain in violation of international law. Unlike Macron, Starmer has not denounced the bombing, seemingly aligning with the Attorney General's advice. Starmer appeared to appreciate the outcome of the US bombing, stating it would "alleviate" the Iran nuclear issue, prompting accusations of accepting the consequence of the bombing while not endorsing the method itself, reports the Express. The US strikes came after European leaders spent a week publicly and privately urging Trump to avoid unilateral action. Instead, the US conducted a surprise stealth attack on three Iranian nuclear sites, which Trump hailed as a mission that left all targets "obliterated." The decision has sparked serious concerns about the potential influence of Sir Keir and other Western leaders on President Trump's global strategy. This follows the US president's abrupt departure from the G7 summit in Canada last week, with another confrontation anticipated at the upcoming Nato summit in The Hague on Wednesday. Speaking to journalists, Mr Macron remarked: "It may be considered legitimate... to neutralise nuclear facilities in Iran, given our objectives. "However, there is no legal framework, no. And so we must say it as it is: there is no legality to these strikes. "Even though France shares the objective of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, we have consistently believed from the outset that this can only be achieved through diplomatic and technical means. "I say this because I hear many commentators who basically accuse you of inefficiency when you defend the diplomatic route on these issues. But when you are consistent, you can claim to be effective." He continued: "We continue to believe that it is through negotiation and re-engagement that we can achieve our goals." Norway's Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store supported this view, stating: "International law has some clear principles on the use of force. It can be granted by the Security Council or it can be in pure self-defence," thus indicating that the US attacks fall "outside the realm of international law". Mr Macron's stance contrasted sharply with the views expressed by Germany and NATO chief Mark Rutte, who maintained that the preemptive US intervention was lawful. When queried about how the scenario equates to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Mr Rutte asserted: "My biggest fear would be for Iran to own and be able to use and deploy a nuclear weapon to be a stranglehold on Israel, on the whole region and other parts of the world. "This is a consistent position of Nato: Iran should not have its hands on a nuclear weapon," he added. "I would not agree that this is against international law - what the US did." Similarly, Friedrich Merz, the Chancellor of Germany, supported the actions of the US and Israel stating there was "no reason to criticise" their tactics, arguing that it wasn't feasible to leave Iran's nuclear progress unchallenged. Back in Westminster, Ministers echoed Mr Macron's prudent approach. Numerous ministers sidestepped giving a direct endorsement of the bombings as either lawful or substantiated, opting instead to convey relief that Iran's development towards a nuclear armament was hindered. Questioned about the strikes' legal status on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Foreign Secretary David Lammy responded: "Well, we weren't involved, it's for the Americans to discuss those issues."
Daily Mirror
39 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Macron labels Trump's Iran air strikes 'illegal', piling pressure on Starmer
Emmanuel Macron has broken ranks with allies by declaring that Donald Trump's air strikes on Iran were "illegal", deepening the row over whether the US action broke international law Emmanuel Macron has lashed out at US President Donald Trump's recent air strikes on Iran, labelling them "illegal" and escalating tensions over potential violations of international law, as reported by The Telegraph. The French president cautioned that while striking nuclear facilities presenting a threat could be seen as "legitimate", there was no legal grounding for the strikes executed by America and Israel last Saturday. Macron's remarks come amid hesitation from Sir Keir Starmer and top ministers to clearly state their position on the US president's decision, despite growing calls for the PM to decisively state his stance. Sir Keir had been warned before by his Attorney General, Lord Hermer, that allying with the US in an attack might contravene international law. However, unlike Macron, he has not openly condemned the strikes – a move in line with the legal advice he received. In contrast, Starmer appeared to approve of the outcome of the US bombing by suggesting it would help "alleviate" the Iranian nuclear issue, sparking criticism for seemingly condoning the results without endorsing the methods, reports the Express. The strikes from the US were preceded by intensive attempts over the past week by European leaders to dissuade Trump from acting alone. Disregarding their appeals, the US spearheaded a covert operation against three Iranian nuclear facilities on Saturday night—a move which Trump later celebrated as a triumph that totally "obliterated" the targets. The recent actions have sparked concerns over Sir Keir and other Western leaders' sway in steering Trump's global strategies. The tension follows Trump's abrupt departure from the G7 summit in Canada, with another potential showdown expected at the Nato summit in The Hague this Wednesday. Macron addressed journalists, stating: "It may be considered legitimate... to neutralise nuclear facilities in Iran, given our objectives." He underscored the absence of a legal basis for such measures: "However, there is no legal framework, no. And so we must say it as it is: there is no legality to these strikes." Even though France is in agreement on preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear capabilities, Macron underscored their long-standing stance: "Even though France shares the objective of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, we have consistently believed from the outset that this can only be achieved through diplomatic and technical means." He defended the effectiveness of diplomacy: "I say this because I hear many commentators who basically accuse you of inefficiency when you defend the diplomatic route on these issues. But when you are consistent, you can claim to be effective." Macron further insisted: "We continue to believe that it is through negotiation and re-engagement that we can achieve our goals." Echoing Macron's sentiments, Norway's Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store also weighed in, citing international law: "International law has some clear principles on the use of force. It can be granted by the Security Council or it can be in pure self-defence," thereby emphasising that the US operations were "outside the realm of international law". Macron's comments appear to be starkly at odds with German and Nato counterparts like Mark Rutte, who maintain that the US's pre-emptive actions were legal. When questioned on parallels drawn between this and Russia's incursion into Ukraine, Mr Rutte remarked: "My biggest fear would be for Iran to own and be able to use and deploy a nuclear weapon to be a stranglehold on Israel, on the whole region and other parts of the world. "This is a consistent position of Nato: Iran should not have its hands on a nuclear weapon," he added. "I would not agree that this is against international law - what the US did." Friedrich Merz, Germany's Chancellor, also stood by America and Israel, stating there is "no reason to criticise" their operations, asserting that neglecting Iran's nuclear programme wasn't a viable option. In Westminster, however, ministers followed Macron's prudent stance, refraining from explicitly labelling the strikes as lawful or justified, but instead expressing relief over thwarting Iran's nuclear capabilities. Foreign Secretary David Lammy adopted a careful approach during his interview on BBC Radio 4's Today programme regarding the legality of the bombings, simply stating: "Well, we weren't involved, it's for the Americans to discuss those issues."
