Wealth tax should be considered by Treasury, former Labour minister suggests
Anneliese Dodds has argued it is 'important' for the Government to consider evidence set out by the Wealth Tax Commission, which looked at whether such a tax would be desirable and deliverable in the UK.
In its final report, released in 2020, the Commission said a one-off wealth tax on millionaire couples paid at 1% a year for five years would raise £260 billion.
Others in the Labour Party, including former leader Lord Neil Kinnock and Wales's First Minister Baroness Eluned Morgan, have also called for a wealth tax.
Union leaders, including Sharon Graham of Unite, are also pressuring ministers to consider the move.
A tax on the wealthy has not been formally ruled out by ministers, but Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds branded the idea as 'daft' in June this year.
Ms Dodds resigned as a Foreign Office minister over the Government's decision to cut overseas aid to fund a boost to defence spending in February.
Speaking to Sky News' Electoral Dysfunction, she said work undertaken by the Wealth Tax Commission 'has changed the debate'.
The MP for Oxford East added: 'They looked at the operation of lots of different wealth tax. They looked at all of that evidence and set out how it would be possible to deliver something like that in a UK context.
'I would hope that the Treasury is considering that kind of evidence as well as other changes that have been put forward.
'We've seen the deputy leader of the Labour Party, for example, put forward suggestions. I think it's important for all of those to be considered now.'
On Rachel Reeves' approach to welfare, Ms Dodds said: 'An attempt was made to deal with a quite immediate problem, but I don't think you can, particularly via cuts, actually deliver the kind of fiscal room that is necessary.'
'It may make sense tactically, but strategically a longer-term approach is needed and that's the the big issue that the Government has to face up to,' she added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
12 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The Royal Navy needs to develop a completely new idea of what a warship is
For many decades, the Royal Navy's thinking and therefore its shipbuilding has remained unchanged. We have had capital ships: aircraft carriers, helicopter carriers and amphibious platforms. We've also had frigates and destroyers (the backbone) to hunt submarines and provide area air defence – but more often than not to look like a warship and do warship type influence operations. Then there were an array of smaller ships for charting and patrolling the oceans and hunting both mines and maritime crooks such as fish thieves. Finally there are two types of nuclear powered submarines: attack boats and the strategic deterrent. But when you look at what we want from our navy now and the resources that are available to do it, no matter how much of a traditionalist you are, it is impossible to see how this model is sustainable. For navies to function across the huge range of tasks they need to undertake they need both balance and mass. The current Royal Navy has good balance from diplomacy to fighting but is woefully short on mass. You don't need to be a maritime historian to know how that ends when the shooting starts. I will leave the Royal Fleet Auxiliary out of it for this article as I've written about them recently. Focusing on surface vessels, there are three broad types of ships that we now need to consider adding to the traditional mix outlined above. Actually, we don't need to consider it, we need to do it. These are ships taken up from trade, medium sized low- or un-crewed vessels and autonomous small craft and weapons. Ships taken up from trade include vessels like HMS Stirling Castle (mine warfare), RFA Proteus and HMS Scott (surveillance) and HMS Protector (ice patrol). These are ships built to a commercial specification that the Navy then leases or buys for use on operations. They are not fighting ships; their lack of self-defence systems, watertight integrity and machinery plants do not permit it, but that doesn't mean they don't have tremendous utility. It's a truism of navies that they spend more of their time setting the conditions to avoid fighting than actually fighting – this is where these ships sit. And given how hard it is to fund and sustain the high end stuff, we need to get better at buying and running them. Autonomous vessels can be split into two: those that are large enough to operate on their own and those that need support from a mother ship. I'm going to focus on the former although one only needs a cursory knowledge of this subject to know that for both, the rate at which we are progressing in this field, and the rate at which we need to, are wildly different. As is so often the case, enter the US and their recently announced Modular Attack Surface Craft (MASC) programme. This is a fascinating programme that is set to move from concept to prototype to delivery in less than two years, the kind of pace that would make traditional ship manufacturers weep. It is still some way short of Ukraine's ability to build new systems but it's fast for a peacetime programme. The three models have been outlined with how many containers they can carry seemingly determining their size. The largest will take 'four or more' ISO containers, the middle one takes two of the same and the smallest, one half-size container. Endurance for the larger one is around the 60 day mark 'without crew intervention'. Here I have a query because in a ship roughly 60m long and with a 3m draft, unless you're going everywhere at two knots, then this is a stretch but I'll leave it for now. The larger two also have optional crewing options. In the real world they'll probably have people aboard a lot of the time, as security guards if nothing else, but the people will tend to get off once the risk level goes up. What these low- or un-crewed MASC ships will be used for is less clear at this stage, but from the work the US is doing on containerised weapons systems, and the way one of the models has its drive train configured, it looks as though they will be focussed on anti-air capabilities (traditionally conducted by destroyers) and anti-submarine (frigate). On this subject, I do find myself disagreeing with doctrine purists who always want to see ships being built in response to a carefully crafted master strategy. In reality, the things you are going to want your ships to do haven't changed at either the soft or hard power end of the continuum for a long time. Diplomacy, disaster relief, freedom of navigation, littoral operations, strike, anti-submarine and air operations remain constant no matter how potential adversaries develop methods to try to deny them. This is the eternal cat and mouse of weapons development with the only certainty being that if you wait too long for the perfect kit, or because your system is slow, or because you don't have any cash, you will fall behind. In other words, just build them, the rest will follow. From a UK perspective there are at least four uses for ships like this that are blindingly obvious. There will be others. Missile defence is one and would work equally well in far blue water or around the UK. It would be far better to have a dozen of these ships with containerised SM-6 interceptors (this has been trialled by the US) than hugely expensive systems ashore that can only do one job – or just one or two exquisite destroyers with large crews in 15 or 20 years' time. The containerised data links and ability to transmit a radar picture to these vessels exist now. If we insist on full-fat destroyers with 100+ missile tubes they will cost billions apiece and we will never have enough. We should instead conceive our destroyers as flotilla leaders for MASC-type vessels with containerised weapons to bulk up our firepower. Likewise with anti-submarine warfare (ASW) in the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap and beyond, low- or un-crewed ships with containerised kit could be vital. Anyone who has spent a life at sea gets nervous when tech companies start talking about deploying small short-range systems from mother ships for ASW because it is so often conducted in conditions where just walking around the ship is a challenge, much less deploying and recovering smaller craft. These larger MASC vessels avoid that problem. Another solution would be to deploy one-shot small systems: we already do this with sonobuoys. If it's cheap and numerous enough, this will work. A flotilla of medium autonomous ships with an exquisite Type 26 frigate somewhere in the vicinity running the show starts sounding a lot like balance and mass. A single Type 26, no matter how lovely, does not. And there are companies like Ocean Infinity who have already built medium sized autonomous ships. Defence should allocate resources to allow the Royal Navy to buy them now. Caveats do come to mind on unmanned ships: enemies will probably be much more willing to attack or sink them than manned ones, or even board and seize them. Certainly the bigger types need to be optionally crewed. It will probably often be worthwhile to have a highly skilled maintenance troubleshooter or two aboard, or an experienced bridge watchstander for crowded waters. But they won't always be needed, and there will certainly be no need for the large numbers of semi-skilled maintainers, sensor and weapon operators, cooks, administrators etc that make up most of today's warship crews. There is also of course the risk that unmanned ships might be hacked – though this is also becoming a risk with manned systems. Very little of this discussion is new: the Strategic Defence Review refers to much of it and Naval plans talk about uncrewed sloops (the Type 92) but that's the point – they're being discussed. We need to take a leaf out of the US playbook and just buy it. The Royal Navy has some excellent kit and people but is so short on both that its deterrent effect has been eroded. This is a quick and relatively cheap way out of this hole. Let's see if the US, whose macro fleet issues are similar – albeit much scaled up – can do any better.
Reuters
12 minutes ago
- Reuters
South Korea pledges to help companies cope with higher US tariffs
SEOUL, Aug 5 (Reuters) - South Korea will prepare measures to help companies cope with higher U.S. tariffs and expand into new markets, the Finance Ministry said on Tuesday, as it kicked off a task force to prepare the new administration's economic policy plans. On the domestic front, the government will come up with measures to boost short-term demand, as well as financial support for mid- to long-term technology development to enhance market competitiveness, it said in a statement. South Korea reached a trade deal with the U.S. last week, just days before President Donald Trump's threatened 25% tariff rate was due to come in on its exports to the United States. The trade deal set tariffs on exports from the Asian country at 15%, still higher than a baseline 10% rate and the near zero tariffs for exports under a Korea-U.S. free trade agreement. Still, topics left unresolved by the deal provide scope for more disputes as the two countries prepare for a summit between Trump and new South Korean President Lee Jae Myung in the coming weeks. Trump may use the summit to try to squeeze more concessions on areas such as defence costs and corporate investments, left out of the deal, while non-tariff barriers and currency could prove thorny issues, experts said. South Korea's Finance Ministry, however, sought to give a positive spin on the agreement. The deal reduced uncertainty over the trade environment, while a $350 billion investment package included in the deal will provide new business opportunities for companies, deepen economic cooperation between the two countries, and contribute to a more stable supply chain, the ministry said. The administration of President Lee also plans to prepare policy measures to foster new industries, such as artificial intelligence, semiconductors and "K-contents" and include them in economic growth strategies and budget plans due to be announced later this month. K-contents refers to a range of cultural and entertainment goods produced by the country ranging from K-pop to Korean dramas that have boomed globally. The ministry vowed to bring regulatory improvements to vitalise business activity, as it kicked off a meeting with the country's major business groups. Asia's fourth-largest economy grew in the second quarter at the fastest pace in more than a year on rebounding consumer spending and a surge in technology exports, but still faces headwinds from slowing global trade amid the sweeping tariffs. The International Monetary Fund last week raised its outlook for most advanced and emerging economies this year based on developments around U.S. tariff negotiations, but South Korea was among the exceptions, with its 2025 growth forecast revised down to 0.8% from 1.0%.
BBC News
12 minutes ago
- BBC News
Norfolk and Suffolk Police merger not on cards says commissioner
A police and crime and commissioner said she doubted two forces would be merged - as she announced her job was coming to an Sarah Taylor – who won the election to become Norfolk's commissioner last year – said the role's responsibilities would be transferred to a new mayor's office in the planned mayor responsible for Norfolk and Suffolk, there has been speculation that the county's two police forces could be Taylor said her understanding was that a merger was "not on the cards at all". Last month, Conservative MP Nick Timothy said he believed a merger would take place and it would be a "disaster". Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) are elected officials responsible for setting the priorities of a constabulary, appointing a chief constable and holding them to an election is set to take place in May 2026 to choose the first mayor to run a new combined authority for the the government confirmed it wanted the PCC roles to be absorbed into the work of mayors, the West Suffolk MP Timothy said he thought that would lead to one force covering two counties."It would take decision-making and accountability even further away from where people live.""We need the police really focused on local crimes, on burglaries, on street crime, and that means we need local accountability." Whilst the two forces are separate they do currently work together on some operations such as roads policing and armed said she had asked the Home Office if a merger was a said: "My understanding is that is not on the cards at all, and certainly if it is, they're not talking with us about that transition period.""As to whether that should happen I'm fairly agnostic about it. "I know that would give us a similar level of population of somewhere like North Yorkshire, or Devon and Cornwall – and certainly they seem to work well in that setup. "I don't see a particular reason why that would be detrimental to the service within Norfolk."PCCs serve four year terms in office, but with major changes being made to local government, Taylor said her's would end on 1 April 2027 – less than three years after she was elected."This will mean that I'm not only Labour's first Police and Crime Commissioner for Norfolk, but I will also be Norfolk's shortest serving Police and Crime Commissioner."She added that her "primary focus" was to make sure services were not affected whilst work took place transferring the role's responsibility to a mayor."I think it's fair to say the nuts and bolts of this will need to be worked through," she Home Office has been asked for comment. Follow Norfolk news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
