logo
Liz Truss was 'right' to be radical, but the numbers need to 'add up', shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride tells Sky News

Liz Truss was 'right' to be radical, but the numbers need to 'add up', shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride tells Sky News

Sky Newsa day ago

Former prime minister Liz Truss was right to be radical, but the numbers need to "add up", the Conservative shadow chancellor has told Sky News.
Sir Mel Stride said the 49-day prime minister was "absolutely right" to recognise that "radicalism" is needed to grow the UK economy, "particularly in a more dangerous world", but that it needed to be "delivered in the right way".
He was speaking after delivering a major speech in which he sought to put vast distance between the Conservative Party of today, and the consequences of the mini-budget in September 2022 that sent inflation and interest rates soaring.
In blunt criticism of his party's former leader, Sir Mel vowed they would "never again" repeat the "mistakes" that she made, saying she "put at risk the very stability which Conservatives had always said must be carefully protected".
"The credibility of the UK's economic framework was undermined by spending billions on subsidising energy bills, and tax cuts, with no proper plan for how this would be paid for," he said.
"As a Conservative, of course I want taxes to be as low as possible. But that must be achieved responsibly through fiscal discipline."
He said the mistakes in the mini-budget were rapidly "recognised" by the party's MPs, and stability was restored "within weeks" - but he acknowledged the lasting "damage" to their credibility.
Sir Mel said: "Let me be clear: never again will the Conservative Party undermine fiscal credibility by making promises we cannot afford."
2:55
We need 'responsible radicalism'
Asked by Sky News after her speech what Ms Truss - who was elected by his party's members as leader, and therefore, prime minister - if he thinks she did anything right during her historically short tenure, the shadow chancellor argued that the "radicalism" she displayed is what is needed.
He said: "What is absolutely right is to recognise that the status quo, for the reasons I've given, is no longer tenable, particularly in a more dangerous world."
He pointed to Russia, China, and the Korean peninsula as areas where the world is less stable, as well as the "disengagement of America from European security to at least some degree" - all of which will require more spending on defence.
"That needs a much more strongly growing economy, or we are going to start slipping further and further behind, and we are going to become more fragile and more vulnerable. And I think a recognition of that is absolutely right."
But he continued: "There is a way about doing it, and it has to have, at its heart, fiscal responsibility. It has to have an offer, it has to have something that the markets look at where the numbers add up.
"So we need to have responsible radicalism. We certainly need the radicalism, but it's got to be delivered in the right way," he added.
9:59
Truss and Stride trade barbs
Ahead of the speech, Ms Truss attacked Sir Mel, labelling him a "creature of the system" who "sides with the failed treasury orthodoxy".
Asked for his response by the Bank of England's former chief economist Andy Haldane, who was moderating the session, Sir Mel quipped: "Whatever happened to her?"
He went to suggest she did not have a "credible fiscal policy" which saw her "los[ing] control of the economy".
He added: "The overriding message I bring to you today is: yes, we have made mistakes in the past, but we won't ever, ever repeat them."
Labour and Reform a 'threat to our economy'
Sir Mel was also intensely critical of Labour and Reform, labelling them a "clear and present threat to our economy".
"Only Kemi Badenoch, and the Conservatives, have spoken up for taxpayers and the public finances.," he argued.
"Defending the two-child cap, pushing Labour to be bolder on welfare reform. And we must demonstrate that we will be responsible."
In response to the speech, a Labour Party spokesperson said the Tories have "spent the last six months making billions of pounds of unfunded spending commitments and promoting Liz Truss's disastrous top team".
"The Tories inflicted mortgage misery and sky-high bills on working people. Their weasel words can't change that fact, and their unfunded plans show they will do it all over again. They haven't changed."

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trans lobby groups 'lied for years' that anyone self identifying as a different gender could access women's' toilets, equality chief says
Trans lobby groups 'lied for years' that anyone self identifying as a different gender could access women's' toilets, equality chief says

Daily Mail​

timean hour ago

  • Daily Mail​

Trans lobby groups 'lied for years' that anyone self identifying as a different gender could access women's' toilets, equality chief says

Transgender people were misled about their rights to female only spaces by lobby groups, according to a senior member of an equality watchdog has said. In April a Supreme Court ruling confirmed the terms woman and sex in the 2010 Equality Act 'refer to a biological woman and biological sex'. Akua Reindorf, a barrister who is one of eight commissioners at the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), said trans people had been deceived about their rights were. Speaking in a personal capacity during a debate about the recent ruling, she said there must be a 'period of correction' to acknowledge women's right to women-only spaces. The decision made it legal for trans people to be banned from women-only sports teams, and from using bathrooms and changing rooms for the gender they lived as. These terms were later supported by interim non-statutory advice given by the EHRC last April. When an audience member at the debate raised fears about the recent Supreme Court ruling and how it could strip away trans peoples rights, barrister and panellist, Naomi Cunningham said: 'It can't be helped, I'm afraid.' In agreement with her fellow panellist, Ms Reindorf said she believed trans lobbyists were at faults for the misunderstanding. 'Unfortunately, young people and trans people have been lied to over many years about what their rights are,' she said. 'It's like Naomi said – I just can't say it in a more diplomatic way than that. They have been lied to, and there has to be a period of correction, because other people have rights' She claimed it boiled down to the law prior to the Supreme Court ruling being misunderstood due to groups contending trans people who self-identified should be treated as their preferred gender. However, this was only the case for the those who had obtained a gender recognition certificate (GRC). The barrister said the amalgamation of different rights made the Equality Act nonviable from a personal capacity. 'The catalyst for many to catch up, belatedly, with the fact that the law never permitted self-ID in the first place,' she said. As such, the feeling of a loss of right of trans people was due to an overwhelming product of 'misinformation' perpetrated by 'lobby group and activists'. Author JK Rowling backed the barrister's recent comments, saying lobby groups lied 'about what the law said'.' However, the head of gender justice at Amnesty International UK, Chiara Capraro, hit back Ms Reindorf's comments. She said: 'The EHRC has the duty to uphold the rights of everyone, including all with protected characteristics. We are concerned that it is failing to do so and is unhelpfully pitting the rights of women and trans people against each other.' A spokesman for the EHRC told The Guardian: 'Akua Reindorf KC spoke at this event in a personal capacity. This was made clear at the event and in the video recording published online. 'As Britain's equality regulator, the Equality and Human Rights Commission upholds and enforces the Equality Act 2010 to ensure everyone is treated fairly, consistent with the Act. 'Our board come from all walks of life and bring with them a breadth of skills and experience. This helps us take impartial decisions, which are always based on evidence and the law.'

Post Office compensation chief steps down after Sir Alan Bates raised 'serious concerns' about schemes
Post Office compensation chief steps down after Sir Alan Bates raised 'serious concerns' about schemes

Daily Mail​

timean hour ago

  • Daily Mail​

Post Office compensation chief steps down after Sir Alan Bates raised 'serious concerns' about schemes

A Post Office boss who backed compensation for Horizon IT scandal victims has left his position as Sir Alan Bates raised 'serious concerns' about schemes. Leader of the Post Office's Remediation Unit, Simon Recaldin, is believed to have opted for voluntary redundancy and left his post this week. It comes as the first part of a public inquiry report into the controversy, analysing the compensation process as well as the affect on victims, is anticipated to be released in the coming weeks. More than 900 sub-postmasters were prosecuted between 1999 and 2015 after faulty accounting software made it look as though money was missing from their accounts. Hundreds are still waiting for payouts despite the previous government announcing that those who have had convictions quashed are eligible for £600,000. A Post Office spokesperson said yesterday Mr Recaldin's departure was a part of an 'organisational design exercise' across the firm. Now Joanne Hanley, who was previously a managing director and global head of client servicing, data and operations for Lloyds', is understood to have taken up a large portion of the former Post Office chief, according to The Telegraph. It comes as Post Office hero Sir Alan Bates accused the government of running a 'quasi kangaroo court' payout system for the scandal's victims last month. More recently, Sir Alan said he would prefer to see the compensation schemes thrown out rather the people working on them. 'We have got serious concerns about the transparency and the parity across the schemes,' he told The Telegraph. Last November, Mr Recaldin giving evidence to the inquiry, apologised after it was unearthed staff who were managing compensation claims had also been embroiled in prosecutions relating to the scandal. When queried about ex Post Office investigators he said: 'So my regret – and it is a genuine regret – is that when I came in, in January 2022, that I didn't do that conflicts check, check back on my inherited team, and challenge that.' It comes as the Sir Alan, who famously won his High Court battle with the Post Office in 2019 revealed that he had been handed a 'take it or leave it' compensation offer of less than half his original claim. Mr Bates, 70, said the first offer, made in January last year, was just one sixth of what he was asking for, adding that it rose to a third in the second offer. He has now been given a 'final take it or leave it offer' - which he said amounts to 49.2 per cent of his original claim. He, alongside 500 other sub-postmasters, will now have to lodge their bid for compensation via the Group Litigation order, managed by the Government. Bates, who led the sub-postmasters' campaign for justice, attacked the government for reneging on assurances given when the compensation schemes were set up The Post Office currently manages the Horizon Shortfall Scheme, which is seperate to the aforementioned. This scheme was organised for victims who have not been compensated but believe they experienced financial loses due to the IT scandal. A Post Office spokesman said: 'As part of the Post Office's commitment to deliver a 'new deal for postmasters', we have undertaken a review of our operating model to ensure we have the right structure in place. 'We have been in consultation with a number of colleagues from across the business, including the Remediation Unit. As a result of this Post Office-wide organisational design exercise, Simon Recaldin has left the business.'

Preparing for BNPL regulation: What firms need to do now: By Ben O'Brien
Preparing for BNPL regulation: What firms need to do now: By Ben O'Brien

Finextra

timean hour ago

  • Finextra

Preparing for BNPL regulation: What firms need to do now: By Ben O'Brien

The arrival of formal regulation for Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) products is no longer a question of if, but when. With the Treasury's May 2025 consultation response, the direction is this: by mid-2026, third-party BNPL lenders will fall within the scope of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). This change brings with it a full set of regulatory requirements—covering affordability, creditworthiness, redress, disclosures, and governance. While many firms are familiar with the general framework, the pace and detail of implementation demand serious attention. Risk leaders now face a critical window to build a strategy that aligns commercial goals with regulatory readiness. Scope of the new BNPL regime From mid-2026, third-party BNPL providers must be authorised by the FCA and comply with its rules on affordability, creditworthiness, consumer duty, complaints, disclosures, and more: Mandatory, proportionate affordability and creditworthiness checks Firms must demonstrate verifiable checks at the point of decisioning, aligned to individual circumstances, not just product type. Firms must demonstrate verifiable checks at the point of decisioning, aligned to individual circumstances, not just product type. Access to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) BNPL customers can now escalate complaints to FOS, increasing the importance of auditable redress processes and timely resolution. BNPL customers can now escalate complaints to FOS, increasing the importance of auditable redress processes and timely resolution. Tailored disclosure requirements for digital-first products The FCA will introduce a bespoke regime focused on real-world comprehension — not just information delivery. Firms will need to test and evidence understanding. The FCA will introduce a bespoke regime focused on real-world comprehension — not just information delivery. Firms will need to test and evidence understanding. Extension of Section 75 protections to BNPL agreements Providers will be jointly liable for qualifying claims, requiring clear merchant oversight, governance controls, and capital planning to manage new exposure. While third-party BNPL is the initial focus, merchant-offered BNPL products remain outside the perimeter for now. This exemption, based on Article 60F(2) of the Regulated Activities Order, is under review and could be revisited if scale or harm increases. What this means for compliance and risk leaders The FCA isn't looking for surface-level compliance. It expects firms to demonstrate that processes are working and that consumers are genuinely protected. Affordability frameworks must evolve Checks must be proportionate and verifiable, with models recalibrated to reflect customer circumstances. Even low-value lending must evidence the potential for harm reduction. Complaint handling will need to be FOS-ready This includes robust audit trails, clear redress pathways, MI reporting on themes, and training on FOS processes. Joint liability introduces new exposure Providers must enhance governance around merchant partnerships, define liability clearly in contracts, and plan for potential claims in their capital models. Joined-up governance is essential Effective programmes will require close collaboration across credit, compliance, legal, product, and ops teams—with clear ownership under SM&CR. Disclosures must reflect real-world understanding It's not just about format. The FCA expects firms to test, monitor, and evidence comprehension—particularly for vulnerable customers. Making best use of the Temporary Permissions Regime The FCA will launch a Temporary Permissions Regime (TPR) to support the transition. Providers must be ready to act quickly when the window opens. Prepare for registration Ensure that internal records, model documentation, and business models are clearly aligned with regulatory expectations. Conduct a readiness assessment Review decisioning processes, affordability checks, complaints management, and financial crime controls. Plan for dual-track execution Meet TPR requirements while simultaneously building toward full authorisation. Engage early with the FCA Establish open communication lines to reduce ambiguity and show proactivity. Plan for contingencies Prepare wind-down plans, customer messaging, and backup procedures in case of registration delays or rejections. Innovation and consumer protection can coexist The decision to exclude some legacy Consumer Credit Act requirements reflects the unique nature of BNPL: short-term, interest-free, and often accessed via digital channels. This creates space for a more relevant, user-centric approach to disclosures but it also raises the bar. Risk and compliance teams should work with product, legal, and design leads to ensure communications are: Integrated into real customer journeys Mobile-friendly and accessible Prompted by user behaviour Supported by outcome-based testing and complaints data Those who treat disclosures as a compliance task may struggle. Those who invest in relevance and usability will have stronger customer engagement and defensibility. Merchant carve-out and the risk of market distortion The decision to exclude merchant-led BNPL from the regulatory scope has sparked debate. Without oversight, merchant-offered credit could create competitive asymmetry and raise consumer protection concerns. Risk leaders should: Monitor merchant product developments and prepare for potential perimeter expansion Review all third-party merchant partnerships for regulatory dependencies Revisit financial promotions and credit broking arrangements, particularly where merchants promote BNPL products without broking permissions Regulatory costs and anticipated market impact The Treasury's impact assessment estimates: An Equivalent Annual Net Direct Cost to Business (EANDCB) of £2.3 million A Net Present Value of -£20.1 million over the assessment period over the assessment period Authorisation application fees: £5,000 to £25,000 Annual supervision fees: £10,000 to £50,000 Technology upgrades: £500,000 to £2 million per provider for systems supporting affordability, reporting, and complaints per provider for systems supporting affordability, reporting, and complaints Section 75 exposure: Estimated at 0.5% to 1.2% of transaction values With the UK's BNPL market valued at £20 billion annually, sector-wide exposure to Section 75 alone could exceed £100 million. Consolidation is expected. Government modelling suggests 20–30% of providers may exit the market post-regulation. But with global BNPL volumes growing rapidly, those who remain stand to benefit from a stronger, more trusted marketplace. How leading firms are responding Some providers have already started adjusting: Klarna Following regulatory scrutiny in Sweden, Klarna UK introduced income verification, real-time spend tracking, and risk-based onboarding. Monzo Flex Built affordability into product design from the outset, with integrated credit reporting and real-time tracking. PayPal Adopted a cross-functional compliance strategy with specialist teams, training, and documentation of governance processes. The clock is ticking and the gap between those who prepare and those who delay will widen fast. For risk leaders, this is a chance to go beyond baseline compliance, strengthening frameworks, improving customer outcomes, and shaping the future of BNPL in a regulated environment.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store