Woke red tape stops British armoured vehicle-maker raising funds in the City
A BRITISH firm behind an in-demand armoured military vehicle dubbed 'The Jackal' is urging ministers to clear away red tape so the business can thrive.
Devon-based Supacat says it is 'fighting a bit of a battle' to access finance — despite the popularity of the 7.6-ton bruiser which can tackle the roughest, bumpiest terrain.
5
5
5
The Jackal, which Sun Business Editor Ashley Armstrong took for a spin, can carry 2.1 tons of cargo, such as missile launchers, medical supplies and drone killers.
Supacat — which exports worldwide, making around £40million a year — recently won a new contract from the British Army.
But it is shunned by some investors, who consider defence firms unethical as they do not have 'B Corp' status.
CEO Nick Ames said the defence industry has not been 'top of the popularity tree' for more than a decade.
And he said Supacat was unlikely to list in London to raise funds.
He added: 'The City has for years said we, 'Don't do that sort of thing'. You'd like to see a lot more activity and liquidity on the AIM (Alternative Investment Market). You're more liquid as a business.'
5
With global politics becoming increasingly fragile, the Government plans to increase military spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP within two years.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Defence Secretary John Healey have pledged to give more of the Ministry of Defence budget to smaller British companies, such as Supacat.
The firm, which employs 250, is known to many because Jeremy Clarkson uses one of its ex-Army six-wheelers to get around his Diddly Squat farm.
Phil Applegarth, head of Supacat, said: 'For the first time in our lives defence spending, which has always been cut, is rising.
Keir Starmer must hike UK defence spending soon to have any credibility & ditching woke nonsense can help fund it
'To get in on this ride up we need skilled people, enthusiastic people who aren't frightened to go and join defence firms rather than be shoe-horned into B Corp.
'There is a real sense of pride in working on what we do. We're making something that is vital. It's keeping our forces safe.'
He added: 'We need to build up capability now to be the deterrent that prevents a potential war.'
Mr Applegarth said the defence industry was waiting for the Government to outline its Strategic Defence Review, which is delaying investment.
He added: 'There seems to be a desire to wait rather than keep going and then change.
'You're hearing a lot of top-level speeches saying, 'Prepare, prepare' but the best we could have is longer-term contracts. The longer it is, the more we can invest in resources and skills.
'The current spiky ordering doesn't help as we have to keep getting fresh prices from the supply chain — switching the supply chain on and off rather than keeping it warm and running.'
BAE TO RECRUIT 2,400 WORKERS
DEFENCE giant BAE wants to hire 2,400 apprentices, graduates and undergrads this year as it gears up to meet soaring demand.
It has also shrugged off the threat of President Donald Trump's tariffs, insisting it builds systems for the US Department of Defense in its US factories with a domestic supply chain.
BAE said yesterday it expected to grow sales by up to 9 per cent and earnings 10 per cent as it wins more contracts for combat aircraft and vehicles, missile systems, artillery, sensor technology and drones.
WIND AXE BLOW FOR GREEN ED
5
THE Government's Clean Power push looks increasingly far-fetched after a Danish firm axed a major offshore wind project, blaming higher costs.
Orsted said it will not go ahead with its Hornsea project, where 180 wind turbines off the Yorkshire coast were to power millions of homes.
It is a blow to Energy Secretary Ed Miliband's desire to quadruple the number of offshore wind farms by 2030.
Orsted's chief exec Rasmus Errboe said that the project was unlikely to provide value for money because of 'increased supply chain costs, higher interest rates and increased execution risk'.
Andy Mayer, analyst at the Institute of Economic Affairs, said: 'It is a reminder of the folly of legally binding climate targets.
"The Government's plan to decarbonise the power grid by 2030 denies real trade-offs between lower emissions, energy security and affordability.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
12 minutes ago
- Reuters
Taiwan accuses China of carrying out 'provocative' military patrol near island
TAIPEI, June 6 (Reuters) - Taiwan accused China on Friday of raising tensions in the region with a "provocative" military patrol involving warplanes and warships near the island, an unusual public rebuke in what are typically routine accounts of Chinese military activity. Taiwan, which China views as its own territory, has complained of repeated Chinese military drills and patrols nearby. Since President Lai Ching-te took office last year China has held three major rounds of war games. Taiwan's defence ministry said that starting mid-afternoon Friday, it had detected 21 Chinese military aircraft, including J-16 fighters, operating with warships to carry out "so-called joint combat readiness patrols" and "harass the airspace and seas around us". "The Ministry of National Defence stresses that these acts are highly provocative, fail to pay proper attention to the maritime rights of other countries, bring anxiety and threat to the region, and blatantly undermine the status quo in the region," it said. Taiwan regularly reports such Chinese "combat patrols", but does not generally attach such commentary to its statements. China's defence ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The patrol came one day after Chinese President Xi Jinping and U.S. President Donald Trump spoke by telephone, with Xi telling Trump that the United States must "handle the Taiwan question with prudence". This is "so that the fringe separatists bent on 'Taiwan independence' will not be able to drag China and America into the dangerous terrain of confrontation and even conflict", Xi said, according to a Chinese government read-out of the call. China regularly calls Taiwan its most important and sensitive issue in relations with the United States, which is bound by law to provide the island with the means to defend itself. China says democratically governed Taiwan is its "sacred territory" - a position the government in Taipei strongly rejects - and that it has a right to carry out drills in Chinese territory. Lai, who last month marked a year in office, is hated by Beijing, which calls him a separatist and has rebuffed his repeated offers for talks. Lai says only Taiwan's people can decide their future, and that the government is determined to ramp up defence spending and strengthen its military. China has never renounced the use of force to bring Taiwan under its control. On Sunday, Lai will attend drills in the southern city of Kaohsiung for Taiwan's coast guard, whose ships would be pressed into service in combat roles in the event of war with China.
Sky News
14 minutes ago
- Sky News
Kemi Badenoch: ECHR has become 'sword used to attack democratic decisions'
Kemi Badenoch has warned there is "no silver bullet" to tackle immigration, but said it is "likely" the UK should leave the ECHR. It comes as the Conservative Party leader launched a review into whether the UK should leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In a landmark speech setting out her party's position on immigration, the Tory leader accused the body, which dates back to the 1950s, of becoming a "sword used to attack democratic decisions and common sense". She said the ECHR has been used to prevent foreign criminals, including convicted groomers, from being deported, as they have a right to family life under Article Eight of the convention. Ms Badenoch said: "Over and over again, we hear of cases like this, where the law is weak, or just a mess. "Right now, we are turning into a country that protects criminals and rewards their victims." She said "this can't go on" and described the use of the law in this way as "lawfare". 1:50 New immigration policy Ms Badenoch said she would like to see "a total end to asylum claims in this country by illegal immigrants". She also said the Conservatives want "all those who arrive illegally and try to claim asylum" to be deported immediately. The current asylum system is "broken", and the government has "lost control" of it - with the system now in the control of people traffickers, she alleged. 19:32 Ms Badenoch said she would like to see "fundamental reform", which is why she said she has launched a commission to review the ECHR. The commission will be chaired by Tory peer and former justice minister Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, who is now the shadow attorney general. She accused Labour of having "no interest" in reforming the ECHR, and said that they "quite like the way things are". Ms Badenoch also said the government "isn't interested" in solving problems such as how many immigrants should be allowed to stay in the UK. Badenoch's five tests The Conservative Party leader set out "five tests" she would like the review to judge the ECHR against: • The deportation test - whether parliament, rather than the courts, "decides who comes here and who stays" • The veterans test - this is about stopping "veterans being endlessly pursued by vexatious legal attacks" • The fairness test - whether British citizens can be prioritised for social housing and public services • The justice test - whether prison sentences can be made to actually reflect parliament's intentions • The prosperity test - whether parliament can "prevent endless legal challenges for our infrastructure projects" Ms Badenoch said that if these tests cannot be met and there is "no realistic prospect of changing them", then the UK must leave the ECHR - "no hesitation, no apology". She admitted "there is no silver bullet" - but added she believes this is the best course of action. The review will report back at the party's conference in the autumn. What are the other parties saying? Ms Badenoch's position goes less far than that of Reform UK, who she also attacked in her speech. 1:06 Nigel Farage has said he would leave the ECHR already. It also puts her out of step with some of her cabinet, including prominent Tory, Robert Jenrick. The shadow justice secretary warned Tories the party would "die" if they did not back exiting the ECHR. Labour has meanwhile said it would like to remain in the ECHR but will bring forward legislation to "ensure it is the government and not parliament that decides who should have the right to remain in the UK". Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, said compliance with international law has helped the government strike deals about cracking down on criminal gangs, such as with France and Germany. A Labour spokesperson accused Ms Badenoch of "booting [the issue] into the long grass". They said: "Kemi Badenoch bemoaned the broken immigration and asylum system, but failed to mention it was her party which broke it. The Tories had had 14 years to fix our immigration system."
Telegraph
14 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Sarah Vine's memoir is fascinating, embarrassing and fundamentally tragic
The 'misery memoir ' was a genre one thought peculiar to the early years of this century. However, with this strange book, Sarah Vine, formerly Mrs Michael Gove, has resurrected it. Its title, How Not to Be a Political Wife, seems flippant, and one expects, when beginning it, to experience some sort of extended stunt. What one gets is in turns interesting, embarrassing and, fundamentally, mildly tragic. Ms Vine's contention is that she married a journalist and ended up with a politician; that politics is horrible; and it ruined her marriage and, to a great extent, her life and her children's. How far this is true must be up to each reader to judge. Because of the detail into which the author chooses to go, it seems to this reader that certain factors had shaped her life and her character long before her husband arrived. But first, the interesting stuff. I must come clean: I have long been a friend of Michael Gove, admire his considerable political and intellectual talents, and feel he has had a deeply unfair press. The service this book does to history is to put the record about him straight. First, he was vilified by David Cameron and his cronies for supporting Brexit in the 2016 referendum. It was, as Ms Vine emphasises correctly, a battle between a man with principles and a group of careerists who hardly knew the meaning of the word. Second, he was reviled by much of the Conservative party for his so-called 'betrayal' of Boris Johnson just after the referendum, when Johnson, running for the leadership, was showing precious little loyalty to him. All Gove had done was realise, before it was too late, that Johnson was the incompetent liar, charlatan and trickster his grotesque premiership proved him to be. I and others who knew what went on have defended Gove for years for this reason; it is good that this book puts it all on the record. I hope Theresa May, whose apparently saintly personal reputation also gets the kicking it deserves for her outrageous treatment of Gove in sacking him for 'disloyalty', reads this part of the book at least: maybe she will find a belated sense of shame, though one doubts it. The book also, though, shows just what a cesspit our politics became in the 14 years of Conservative rule from 2010 to 2024. What fills cesspits filled a succession of administrations. Cameron, the first of a succession of unremittingly dire prime ministers, was the ultimate cronyist. He adopted this method of management because his political life was, as Ms Vine definitively shows, all about him and his survival in office; never about what he could do for the country. As some of us wrote at the time, Cameron's addiction to his yes-men and women prevented him from calling on some of the older, and wiser, members of his party who might have given him advice superior to that of his cronies. This, too, is made plain in this book. Cameron's narcissism also made it impossible for him to see a link between his disloyalty to Gove – whom he demoted from Education Secretary despite his being the most successful holder of that office in recent memory – and Gove's decision that his principles about the EU might override any personal loyalty from him that Cameron merited. The embarrassing aspect of this book is the detail into which Ms Vine goes about her background: her being loathed at school, her mental and physical health and the effect her ex-husband's career had on her and their children. Describing her upbringing she portrays her father as a monster. In her acknowledgements at the end of the work she begins with 'my father, for f------ me up so brilliantly'. If we haven't realised it by this stage, what we have just read turns out to be a book by the thinking man's Meghan Markle. It has taken 'courage' (as she says in another acknowledgement: and I am sure it did) to lay all this personal upset bare, and doubtless she has found it therapeutic. Will her own children thank her, in years to come, for going into such detail about what they unquestionably suffered because of their father's prominence, and all the unhappiness it brought them? Doubtless Ms Vine thought she was being cathartic on her own account, and vicariously on theirs. Only time will tell. And then there's the mildly tragic aspect. Ms Vine exposes a chip on her shoulder the size of Yorkshire. Wounded deeply by her dear friend Samantha Cameron – about whom, to her credit, she says no bad word – turning on her viciously at a dinner party around the time of Brexit, she harps on about the class differences between her and the Camerons and their pretty repulsive cast of chums. She should pull herself together: 'Dave's' father was a stockbroker, not the Duke of Devonshire. It's indicative of the lack of a sense of perspective in this book, and which one fears is typical of the Markle school of thought. Most tragic of all is Ms Vine's reference to a 'friendship group' that abandoned them when her husband stood up for himself and his beliefs. I am not sure I have ever met anyone over the age of 14 who has a 'friendship group': but it's just another way of saying that the Goves were sucked in to the bunch of cronies around Cameron, though never so deeply that they could not be expelled again, in what reads like an act of social projectile vomiting. The whole thing is repellently infantile, and it's depressing that impostors such as the Cameron clique were ever allowed near power. I suspect no man reading this book (and I must plead guilty on that front) will perceive all its nuances, because it is (again from its title) presumably aimed mostly at women. One certainly rarely senses that Ms Vine is writing with the idea that a man – other, perhaps, than her ex-husband, about whom also she says no bad word – is among her readership. Perhaps other wives who have suffered because of their husband's careers will obtain something valuable from it. It is not a particularly literary book (if you want that in this context, read Sasha Swire 's diaries about the same period) but it will prove undeniably useful to those unfortunate historians who have to write about this ghastly period in decades to come. Otherwise, Ms Vine might have been far better advised not to write it at all.
