Badenoch urges business leaders to ‘get on the pitch' and support Tories
The Conservative leader also appealed to business leaders to support her party, suggesting there was no credible alternative which would represent their interests.
Speaking at the FTSE 250+ conference in central London, Mrs Badenoch said: 'My message to business is: I'm on your side, but I need you to be on mine too.'
Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch speaking during the Peel Hunt FTSE 250+ conference at the Montcalm Royal London House Hotel in London (Yui Mok/PA)
The Tory leader's appearance at the gathering came as the latest gross domestic product (GDP) figures showed the UK economy shrank more than expected, the day after the Government unveiled spending plans prioritising health and defence over the next few years.
Speaking to an audience of business and investment chiefs, Mrs Badenoch hit out at Labour's tax rises, including the inheritance tax on family farms and national insurance employer contributions.
She added: 'You need to support policies that back enterprise, and you need to challenge those who want more state control.
'Don't just wait for other politicians to do it.
'You need to get on the pitch too.'
The Tory leader claimed the UK has 'forgot that business is a good in and of itself, and it pays for everything. It is the source of our prosperity'.
Kemi Badenoch said only the Conservative Party is making the argument for business (Yui Mok/PA)
Mrs Badenoch added: 'The challenge all of us in this room have now is that many people don't believe this anymore.'
People instead believe 'business hoards wealth' and is 'greedy and needs to be taxed more', she said.
Mrs Badenoch continued: 'This is a crisis.
'And the question before us is simple: Who has credible solutions?
'And I know many of you will be asking, 'Why should we trust the Conservative Party?'
'And I say because no-one is making the argument for business … except me and my party.'
At PMQs I talked about Labour creating an economic spiral.
A reminder we have 4 more years of this… pic.twitter.com/epCeUsau2N
— Kemi Badenoch (@KemiBadenoch) June 12, 2025
Labour offers only 'managed decline', she said, before taking aim at Nigel Farage's Reform UK party.
Mrs Badenoch appealed to the audience, signalling voters cannot 'allow Farage, with no experience of legislating – he's never in Parliament, let alone government – to just come in'.
She added: 'Can you imagine 360 random people suddenly taking over government saying they are going to fix everything?
'We were there for 14 years, sweating and labouring, it was unbelievably difficult.
'How many of you would allow your businesses to be run by people who have never been in that business and say 'Come on in, I'm sure you can fix it'?
'That's what he's offering, it's not real.
Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch criticised Reform UK and Nigel Farage (Yui Mok/PA)
'It is a scam, and it's my job to expose that scam.'
A Reform UK spokesman said: 'Kemi admits they had 14 years and yet all they achieved was sky high taxes, low growth and open borders.
'The only scam is her telling the British public that the Tories have changed.
'It's the same people and the same old failed ideas.
'Quite simply, the Tory party is irrelevant.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Argus
10 minutes ago
- South Wales Argus
Newport City Council offices 'not fit for purpose'
Newport City Council has previously looked into relocating from the Civic Centre to a smaller premises, details released under a Freedom of Information Act request show. A council spokesman said a potential relocation is no longer on the cards – but Conservative councillor David Fouweather claimed the local authority should give serious consideration to the benefits of finding a new home. He said any new council HQ would 'have to be' a central location in Newport, which would have the added bonus of helping 'boost city centre trade at lunchtimes'. The historic Westgate Hotel or the former Admiral building could both prove to be suitable locations, he suggested. A recent Freedom of Information Act request, by Conservative campaigner Michael Enea, found it cost the council around £1.05 million to run the Civic Centre last year. The response also showed there were typically between 200 and 350 staff working daily at the building – which has around 380 'office rooms'. 'I think the Civic Centre is not fit for purpose anymore,' said Cllr Fouweather. 'The running costs are horrendous. But what do you do with the building? That is a major problem. A lot of it is listed.' On the condition and current use of the building, he added: 'If you go down where the staff canteen used to be, it's totally abandoned. There's nothing there. It fell into a state of disrepair. Staff have to rely on vending machines.' Moving to a new, more appropriately-sized building would streamline the council's running costs – and should also spell the end of current remote working policies, according to Cllr Fouweather. 'There's absolutely no need now for working from home', he said, claiming that if more people worked in the office, 'you get a better service, deal with people directly, the public are able to come in rather than [deal with] remote staff where you've got to wait and wait for a response'. But a council spokesperson defended current working arrangements. 'The majority of Newport City Council staff have fixed places of work and do not work remotely,' they said. 'The council, as a modern and mature employer, has enabled those staff who can work from multiple locations to do so. 'While we keep all operational decisions under review, there are no plans to revert to a pre-pandemic position. There is no evidence that remote working from multiple locations has had a negative impact on productivity, while there are clear benefits to it around recruitment and retention, congestion and climate change.' The spokesperson said the previous consideration of relocating from the Civic Centre was part of its 'routine management of our estate… to ensure all of the office space we maintain is fit for purpose for what we need as an organisation'. 'We can confirm that at this moment, the council has no plans to relocate from the civic centre to another location,' they added.
The Independent
28 minutes ago
- The Independent
Starmer accused of U-turn after ordering inquiry into grooming gangs
Sir Keir Starmer has been accused of a U-turn after committing to a statutory inquiry into the grooming gangs scandal. After resisting pressure for months to implement a full probe, the Prime Minister said he had read 'every single word' of an independent report into child sexual exploitation by Baroness Louise Casey and would accept her recommendation for the investigation. Earlier this year, the Government dismissed calls for a public inquiry, saying its focus was on putting in place the outstanding recommendations already made in a seven-year national inquiry by Professor Alexis Jay. Reform UK leader Nigel Farage described the move as a 'welcome U-turn', while Kemi Badenoch called on him to apologise for 'six wasted months'. 'Just like he dismissed concerns about the winter fuel payment and then had to U-turn, just like he needed the Supreme Court to tell him what a woman is, he had to be led by the nose to make the correct decision here,' she said. 'I've been repeatedly calling for a full national inquiry since January. It's about time he recognised he made a mistake and apologised for six wasted months.' Speaking to reporters travelling with him on his visit to Canada, the Prime Minister said: 'I have never said we should not look again at any issue. I have wanted to be assured that on the question of any inquiry. That's why I asked Louise Casey who I hugely respect to do an audit. 'Her position when she started the audit was that there was not a real need for a national inquiry over and above what was going on. 'She has looked at the material she has looked at and she has come to the view that there should be a national inquiry on the basis of what she has seen. 'I have read every single word of her report and I am going to accept her recommendation. That is the right thing to do on the basis of what she has put in her audit.' The Times newspaper reported that the findings of Baroness Casey's review will be set out in Parliament on Monday. The inquiry will be able to compel witnesses to give evidence, and it is understood that it will be national in scope, co-ordinating a series of targeted local investigations. Prof Jay's 2022 report concluded there had been institutional failings across the country and tens of thousands of victims in England and Wales. A national row over grooming gangs was ignited in January after tech billionaire Elon Musk used his X social media platform to launch a barrage of attacks on Sir Keir and safeguarding minister Jess Phillips. It followed the Government's decision to decline a request from Oldham Council for a Whitehall-led inquiry into child sexual abuse in the town. The Government later commissioned a 'rapid' audit by Lady Casey into the nature and scale of group-based child sexual abuse, which had been due to take three months but was delayed.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
The state spends £24,000 a year for every adult. Something's got to give
It's amazing how things change. Just a few months ago Rachel Reeves told us the financial situation was so grim she had no choice but to take the winter fuel payment from all but the poorest pensioners. And now, thanks to Labour, it's all going so well she can afford to give it back. That was, of course, a lie. But it wasn't the big lie. No, the big lie was that the spending review bore any relation to what we will actually spend. The traditional recipe for political success is simple: scrimp, then splurge. Get the pain out of the way after the election, so you can splash out before the next one. • Jobs market is flashing a warning sign to Rachel Reeves That's not the approach Reeves took. She wanted to show she was ending austerity (such as it was). But the finances were desperately tight. Her solution, apart from raising taxes, was to frontload her spending increases and hope something turned up. The result is a spending profile that resembles a child playing a violin: sharp, then flat. Between 2025-26 and 2028-29, day-to-day departmental spending is to rise from £518 billion to £568 billion. Factoring in inflation, that means budgets in the last two years of the parliament will grow by just 1 per cent a year — and far less for most departments, since the overall figure includes 3 per cent a year for the NHS (which is getting more than half of all the extra cash). Will Labour really go into the election amid more 'Tory austerity'? Well, no. It'll want to spend more. Or need to: Reeves's ferociously tight numbers leave no room for downturns, pay strikes, trade wars or shooting wars. Her plans also depend on £14 billion in hazily detailed 'efficiency savings'. And the hoped-for bailout via a mid-term growth bonanza is less likely than ever. But here's the paradox. From the perspective of the Labour Party, most of those working in public services and her own electoral prospects, Reeves isn't spending nearly enough. But from another perspective, the chancellor is spending far, far too much. Public spending is running at 44 per cent of GDP, a historic high. Taxes, too, are historically high, and universally expected to go higher. Not only have we been spending like crazy, not least because of the pandemic, but we've been spending money we don't have — resulting in an annual bill of more than £100 billion just to cover the interest on our debts. These numbers can be hard to put into context. So our team at the Centre for Policy Studies think tank has come up with a different way of looking at it. We estimate that we are now spending £23,757 for every adult in this country: roughly two thirds of the average full-time salary of £37,500. That includes £3,807 on health, £5,817 on welfare and pensions and a shocking £1,955 for that debt bill. Restrict the calculation to those of working age, and spending is north of £30,000 a head. Factor in economic inactivity, and the state is almost certainly spending more than every worker aged 18 to 65 is earning. This is very obviously not sustainable. So how to square the circle? Given the position we're in, shaving departmental budgets just won't cut it, especially when the chancellor claims to have already ruthlessly reviewed every pound they spend (yet somehow set them all the same target for efficiency savings). We need to accept instead that government cannot actually do all the things it tries to. But we already know how hard that will be. If ministers are going to U-turn on the winter fuel payment and wobble on a set of welfare reforms that barely slow, let alone halt, the rise in disability and incapacity spending, how can they possibly tackle issues like the triple lock, social care or special educational needs and disability (Send) costs for councils? That's before even mentioning the NHS. So here are a couple of heretical thoughts. The first is that rather than guaranteeing the level of any individual benefit, we should think in terms of total spend. Let's say we decide that we can only afford to devote 1.5 per cent of GDP to a particular benefit. If more people claim, the totals go down. If people want more cash, they either have to dob in the fraudsters or accept the kinds of policy likely to swell GDP. A gentler version would be to keep benefits from falling, but ensure that they increase only when we can actually afford it. Revolutionary, I know. The second idea is more fundamental: to accept that government cannot actually move the economic needle. If you were listening to the spending review, you would have heard pledge after pledge: billions spent on this, billions on that. But that is not how you get the economy growing. You do that by creating the conditions for individuals and businesses to boost it for you. This may sound like Thatcherite dogma. But it's simple maths. Investment in the UK is roughly 18 per cent of GDP. But the state is responsible for perhaps a sixth of that. Hence Reeves's talk of 'co-investment': using small amounts of state funding to leverage much larger private sums. Or let's look at affordable housing, one of the few areas that did get some cash at the spending review. The government is promising an extra £39 billion over ten years. That's useful. But housebuilders knocked up £46 billion in private sector housing in just the past year — a pretty slow year, at point is that even small increases, or falls, in private sector activity have a far larger impact on the economy, and balance sheet, than the endless initiatives that pour forth from government. Which is precisely why Reeves's jobs tax was so damaging. Generating those increases, or falls, often isn't about money, but common sense. On housebuilding, for example, our system is based on local plans set out by councils. But loads of councils don't have plans in place. And Labour has embarked on a massive local government reorganisation that will delay their publication still further, dooming any hope of hitting its housing targets. It may be anathema to many on the Labour benches, but if the government is to have any hope of avoiding tax rises not just this autumn but for years to come, it needs to do what it finds hardest: clear the obstacles and let the private sector get on with it. The temptation, instead, will be to hammer work, wealth and business one more time. Which will of course make the task facing the chancellor even harder.
