Swinney accuses Reeves of ‘channelling Thatcher' with financial reforms
Ahead of Tuesday evening's keynote address, there had been speculation among observers that the Labour Chancellor would 'channel Margaret Thatcher' with a new era of deregulation.
Ms Reeves said she would be 'rolling back regulation that has gone too far' with plans to cut red tape in the City and reform banking rules, including the ring-fencing regime.Addressing the financial sector, the Chancellor insisted the changes are needed for the UK to stay competitive in a more uncertain global economy.
She said she had 'placed financial services at the heart of the Government's growth mission, recognising that Britain cannot succeed and meet its growth ambitions without a financial services sector that is fighting fit and thriving'.
However Mr Swinney said: 'The very idea that a Labour Chancellor thinks that channelling Margaret Thatcher is what our economy needs is extraordinary.
'It is the very last thing we need as we try to recover from Tory austerity.'
He added that people 'right across Scotland' had 'suffered terribly' during Conservative Mrs Thatcher's time as prime minister from 1979 to 1990, and that 'communities were decimated and countless livelihoods were thrown on the scrapheap'.
Going on to claim the country is 'still dealing' with the impact of Thatcherism, Mr Swinney said: 'The UK economy does not work for Scotland.
'Rather than come up with serious solutions to fix it, Labour are doubling down on the same agenda that has failed before.
'We do not need an effort to replicate Thatcher's agenda – we need bold action and investment to tackle the effects of Thatcher that are still with us.
'Labour could relax their fiscal rules or make the choice to ask higher earners to pay a little more to unlock investment, just as we have done in Scotland.'
But the First Minister said the UK Government 'clearly lack the political courage' to do this.
He added: 'Scotland was promised change by Labour – instead we have been given the same tired economic policies, and efforts to balance the books on the backs of the most vulnerable.
'We have learned that you cannot trust a word Labour say before an election – and that if Scotland is to create an economy that works for everyone, the only way we can do so is as an independent country.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
27 minutes ago
- Spectator
Sunday shows round-up: Reed puts his job on the line over water targets
Environment Secretary Steve Reed puts his job on the line over water targets The government has announced plans to halve sewage pollution from water companies by 2030, with the help of £104 billion of private investment. On the BBC this morning, Laura Kuenssberg interviewed Environment Secretary Steve Reed, noting that halving current sewage pollution would only bring us back to the levels of 2019, when there were 225,000 sewage spills. Reed claimed that that wasn't the end of the government's ambition, and said the target was to restore all water bodies to 'good health' within a decade. Reed emphasised that water pollution has got worse every year, and that Labour have drawn a line now to 'turn this situation around'. He called for a 'revolution in the rules that govern our water sector' in order to meet targets where previous governments have failed. Kuenssberg asked if water companies would be allowed to increase bills again, and Reed admitted it would be up to the regulators. When asked if his job should be on the line if he fails to meet his targets, Reed replied, 'it should be, shouldn't it?' Farage on nationalising 50% of the water industry: 'It doesn't need to be a big sum of money' Also speaking to Kuenssberg about the water sector was Nigel Farage, who proposed taking half of the industry into public control. Kuenssberg pointed out that it could cost in the region of £50bn, and asked how much taxpayers money Farage would be willing to spend to achieve this goal. Farage said he didn't know the figure, but he believed it would be 'much less than that, if you strike the right deal'. Kuenssberg noted that Farage used to say Corbyn's economics were from 'La La Land' when he wanted to nationalise water. Farage argued that he didn't want government running water entirely, but that the state needed 'some degree of control'. Kevin Hollinrake: 'I'm worried it might just be shuffling the deckchairs on the Titanic' It is expected that Ofwat will be abolished and replaced by a new water regulator, as a result of recommendations made by the review which will be published on Monday. On Sky News, Trevor Phillips asked Shadow Housing Secretary Kevin Hollinrake whether he supported that decision. Hollinrake said that 'good regulation' was necessary, and welcomed Labour's new targets around water pollution, saying they were possible because of measures the Conservatives had put in place, but he compared the water industry to the 'Titanic'. Phillips asked whether the Tories effectively launched the Titanic when they privatised the industry. Hollinrake argued that the level of investment achieved after privatisation wouldn't have happened if it was in public control. Phillips noted that a lot more investment was required over the next couple of decades, and that companies couldn't meet those amounts when answering to shareholders. Hollinrake suggested that in a nationalised system there wouldn't be enough public money to invest in all essential public services. Steve Reed: 'If people think they're more important than the team, they need to think again' Trevor Phillips also asked Steve Reed about the four MPs who were suspended from Labour this week. The prime minister told reporters that 'everyone was elected on a Labour manifesto of change', and said he had to 'deal with people who repeatedly break the whip'. Phillips pointed out that Starmer had declared the welfare reform bill to have the achieved the 'right balance' after amending it due to resistance from Rachael Maskell, who was then suspended. Phillips asked why she was being punished. Reed said, 'it's not about one incident, it is about the team'. When asked whether Starmer was being fair, the environment secretary argued it was fair to 'be required to play the team game', and said that Labour needed to get 'big changes through'. Farage on net zero: 'This is not my religion' Laura Kuenssberg also asked Nigel Farage about climate change, after Reform UK's Mayor of Greater Lincolnshire Dame Andrea Jenkyns claimed it 'doesn't exist' this week. Farage said he believed in climate change, but had 'no idea' what proportion of it was man-made. The Reform leader said net zero is the 'religion of Westminster now in a fairly Godless age', but claimed that 2.5 million manufacturing jobs in Britain could be gone 'within the next decade' because of net zero policies. Kuenssberg pointed out that there is scientific consensus that human activity has a significant impact on the climate. Farage argued that UK taxpayers were being 'defrauded' of billions of pounds because of renewable energy subsidies for 'literally zero effect on global CO2 emissions'. Farage claimed that net zero policies just export manufacturing and emissions to other parts of the world. Ed Davey: Move further towards renewable energy, not 'expensive gas' Finally, Laura Kuenssberg interviewed Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey, who said he was 'disappointed in this Labour government', and called for 'big ideas' to counter Nigel Farage. Davey told Kuenssberg that we must 'halve… businesses' energy bills within the decade', by investing further in renewable energy. He argued that it is the price of gas that has been raising energy bills, and that the Liberal Democrats have a plan to make the country less reliant on 'expensive gas from Vladimir Putin'.
The Guardian
44 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘Outwitted': have water companies managed to sidestep Labour's bonus ban?
It started before the election. Against a background of growing fury about the conduct of the water companies, Labour promised to end the injustice of their executives getting bonuses while sewage was dumped in England's rivers and seas. In March 2024, Steve Reed, the then shadow environment secretary, said: 'Since the last election the water bosses have paid themselves £25m in bonuses. Labour will ban the payment of bonuses to polluting water bosses until they have cleaned up their filth.' The policy became a significant part of the election campaign two months later. The manifesto promised: 'We will give regulators new powers to block the payment of bonuses to executives who pollute our waterways.' Once in power, Labour went straight into action. One of the first big laws it passed was the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025. The legislation contains provisions to ban performance-related payments to senior executives of water companies that repeatedly pollute England's waterways with sewage. Reed, now environment secretary, described it as a means to end the 'undeserved' payments. Under the act, the government banned six water firms including Thames Water from awarding bonuses for this financial year after seven major pollution incidents. However, it was not long before flaws in this plan began to emerge. Thames Water has faced particular challenges this year, with regular discussions over its possible collapse, even as customers' bills soar to pay for infrastructure. In February, as the legislation was going through parliament, a court ruled that Thames could proceed with a controversial £3bn loan from a group of creditors, at a 9.75% interest rate, in order to stabilise the company. In May, the chair of Thames, Adrian Montague, told MPs on the environment, food and rural affairs (Efra) committee that bosses were in line for 'substantial' bonuses linked to the loan, on the insistence of creditors. The company needed to pay the bonuses, he said, 'because we have to keep staff. It is a very competitive marketplace out there … If we are unable to pay bonuses, people will come knocking and try to pick out of us the best staff we have. That is not in customers' interests.' Soon afterwards, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced plans to use the act to block Thames bosses taking bonuses. A week later, Reed appeared in front of the same committee, telling MPs that the bonuses had been withdrawn. At the same hearing Montague conceded in a letter that he may have misspoken when he said the bonuses were insisted upon by creditors. Reed told the committee that Thames Water had 'appeared to be attempting to circumvent that ban, calling their bonuses something different so they can continue to pay them'. Thames responded, saying that rather than having been withdrawn, the bonuses were paused. But in July the Guardian revealed that Thames had already paid bonuses totalling £2.46m to 21 managers on 30 April, and was refusing to claw the money back. Although it had paused the bonus scheme, or management retention plan (MRP), it did not promise that the next tranches would not also be paid, with the managers due to receive the same sum again in December and a further £10.8m collectively next June. Under the Water (Special Measures) Act, the only bonuses that can be stopped to those at the very top of the company, such as the chief executive, the chief financial officer and the chair. Chris Weston, the chief executive of Thames Water, has voluntarily declined his 300% bonus, because, he said, it would have been a 'distraction'. The water campaigner and former Undertones frontman, Feargal Sharkey, campaigned with Keir Starmer during the general election. But Sharkey has been left unimpressed by the bonus ban. He said: 'Driving forward eye-catching policies designed to do nothing more than grab headlines is no way to fix the biggest problem facing this country in the 21st century, the government has been outwitted and outmanoeuvred by the water companies.' Was the Thames package designed to circumvent the rules? Documents it released to the Efra committee show that when designing the payments package, the company hired top consultants and law firms including Rothschild & Co, Linklaters and Mercer to help it come up with a retention programme that was legally sound and would get past regulators. During Thames board meetings set up to discuss the bonuses, members asked 'if any pressure to waive bonus would be a risk generally or under the water (special measures) bill', according to the documents The board was told the bonuses were in line with the specifications of the legislation: 'The [remuneration] committee requested to reconfirm whether the MRP was consistent with the Water (Special Measures) Act and related Ofwat consultation and it was confirmed that the MRP was a retention payment rather than a bonus, and had no performance-related element. As such, it was not restricted by the Water (Special Measures) Act.' Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion Thames Water and its lawyers and advisers believe they could pay its chief executive and chief financial officer under the scheme if they wanted, because they are retention payments. If this loophole remains open, any water company that breaches pollution rules could continue to pay out millions in bonuses to their executives, as long as the payments are not labelled performance related. In a letter to the Efra committee in July, Reed would not directly answer whether these bonuses would be banned. He said: 'Should Ofwat determine Thames Water have breached the performance-related payments rule, then I expect them to take appropriate enforcement action.' A Defra spokesperson followed up and said: 'It is for companies to follow these new rules and help rebuild trust with their customers.' Water companies can also get round the bonus ban by hiking the pay of executives to make up for the lack of compensation. The Guardian revealed this week that Southern Water has nearly doubled its chief executive Lawrence Gosden's annual pay package to £1.4m. Southern has already been allowed to increase average bills by 53% over the next five years and is appealing to the Competition and Markets Authority to charge more. Ofwat says it may bring forward a planned review of the bonus ban, currently set for 2027, to look at the scope of the rules and see whether the net needs to be widened. The regulator added that executive salaries were a matter for the water companies, but said it expected them to be appropriate when taking bonus bans and company performance into account. A Defra spokesperson said: 'Undeserved bonuses for water company bosses have now been banned as part of the government's plan to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas for good. Any instances of companies trying to circumvent the new rules are completely unacceptable. 'The government will leave no stone unturned against any bosses being made these outrageous payments.' Southern Water said the rise in its chief executive's salary was not an attempt to evade the bonus ban but part of a 'long-term incentive plan' as part of an effort to turnaround the company. It added that the payments were 'common industry practice'. A Thames Water spokesperson said: 'The company's CEO is not party to the MRP and has received no payments. None of the retention payments have been funded by customers. Full details of the plan have been shared with our economic regulator and the Efra committee.'
Daily Record
an hour ago
- Daily Record
SNP 'sitting on cash' rather than investing in Scottish hospices, warns Labour
Labour has pledged hospice-based doctors and nurses would see their wages rise to NHS levels if the party takes power at the Holyrood. The SNP Government must ensure that hospices in Scotland are given enough cash to address the financial crisis facing the sector, Labour has warned. The call comes after UK ministers announced £75 million would be shared among 170 facilities in England – believed to be the biggest boost ever for the sector. The cash will go towards building separate family rooms, adding solar panels to reduce energy costs and communal lounges. Jackie Baillie, Scottish Labour health spokeswoman, last week pledged hospice-based doctors and nurses would see their wages rise to NHS levels if her party takes power at the Holyrood election next year. The Scottish Government promised in its budget to fund hospices to allow pay for staff to be increased to match levels in the NHS, but Labour has claimed the funding has not yet been released. Baillie said: 'While the UK Labour Government is investing in hospices, the SNP is sitting on cash rather than giving this vital part of our health system the resources it needs. 'The SNP committed to £5 million in this year's budget to cover salary rises for last year, yet so far this has not been delivered. 'The SNP must give hospices the money they are owed and match Scottish Labour's pledge on pay so that staff are treated fairly and patients get the specialist support they deserve.' Baillie vowed Scottish Labour would increase hospice funding by a further £3.6 million this year and £3.3 million next year, in line with NHS spending, if the party wins the 2026 Holyrood election. The UK Government announced its funding increase today, with minister Stephen Kinnock praising the impact of the facilities. "Hospices play a vital role in our society by providing invaluable care and support when people need it most,' he said. "At this most difficult time, people deserve to receive the best care in the best possible environment with dignity. "I've seen first-hand how our funding is already making a real difference to improving facilities for patients and families. This additional funding will deliver further upgrades, relieving pressure on day-to-day spending. "End-of-life care is crucial to our 10 Year Health Plan and our fundamental shift of moving more care out of hospital and into the community. We will continue to support hospices so they can deliver their vital work.' The Scottish Government is being asked for comment.
