Liz Truss’s bid to “go for growth” by slashing taxes on big business profits has failed in the past and will fail again, a leading think tank is warning.

Rob Merrick www.independent.co.uk

The plan to scrap a hike in corporation tax ignores the harsh lessons of recent history – when investment stagnated despite ultra-low rates – and is not even favoured by business leaders, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) is arguing.

Instead, it calls for a strategy stretching beyond tax to boost investment and productivity by tackling chronic problems in housing, energy, transport, skills and childcare.

“Slashing corporation tax is just a continuation of a failed race to the bottom that hasn’t delivered for the UK economy,” said George Dibb, head of the Centre for Economic Justice at the IPPR.

“Tax cuts are not a magic bullet to increase investment and growth – in fact, despite having some of the lowest levels of corporate taxation, business investment in the UK is the lowest in the G7.

“If the government were serious about boosting investment, it would be listening to businesses who want a serious economic strategy to support growth, boost innovation, and increase our low productivity.”

Friday’s mini-budget is expected to fulfil Ms Truss’s campaign pledge to axe the corporation tax hike, as one of a clutch of policies that will benefit the better off.

The levy is due to rise from 19p to 25p next April, after former chancellor Rishi Sunak reversed years of Tory economic faith by accepting the low rate was failing to fire up business investment.

The analysis by the IPPR has found that – even with the 19p rate, by far the lowest of the G7 leading economies – the UK fell behind its rivals in the investment race.

In 2019, it slipped behind Italy and Canada to have the lowest private sector investment in the G7 as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP), the left-leaning think tank said.

The following year, the UK ranked a miserable 28th out of a 31-strong group of developed countries which are members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Mr Dibb added: “We’re not just falling behind the largest economies either, the UK is consistently in the worst performers in the OECD club of 38 developed economies.”

He criticised a belief that a government “can cut tax and deregulate its way to growth, which has failed before” – contrasting it with Joe Biden’s “whole-government” approach.

A “chop-and-change” approach – which had seen government adopt five strategies in just eight years – was also confusing businesses and undermining UK economic credibility, Mr Dibb said.

The mini-budget is also expected to see taxes cut in a string of “investment zones”, where businesses may also be able to ignore some environmental regulations.

But a near-identical policy pursued by George Osborne after 2010 – when they were called “enterprise zones” – also failed to spur growth in economically left behind areas.

“This isn’t a Brexit freedom. It’s a nonsense.” Conservative MP

It was meant to be one of the sure-fire wins for Brexit, but plans to bring back imperial measurements face criticism over claims of a biased government review.

Jon Ungoed-Thomas www.theguardian.com

Ministers were keen to launch a review to revive imperial measurements – such as pounds and ounces – and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), now overseen by Jacob Rees-Mogg, conducted a government consultation over the summer. However, the questions appeared to have something missing.

The survey asked consumers: “If you had a choice, would you want to purchase items: i) in imperial units ii) in imperial units alongside a metric equivalent.”

No other option was given.

Officials said respondents who wanted to keep the current metric system could send in an email to the department or give their views in one of the text boxes in the survey.

The BBC Radio 4 programme More or Less last week highlighted concerns about the survey and criticism of it on social media.

One Twitter user commented: “This survey is being punted out by BEIS. It is so slanted that the words nearly slide off the page.”

Dr Pamela Campanelli, a consultant on survey methods who has advised local government, told More or Less: “This is missing the category that you would prefer metric only. We’re going to get a biased answer, because people have to choose something that doesn’t apply to them.

“It seems like they’re actually trying to sculpt or lead the responses towards what they want, because they want people to go back to imperial.”

France adopted a metric system in the late 18th century, and a Decimalisation Assocation was founded in Britain in 1841 to lobby for a new system for currency and measurements. A report by a standards commission in the 1860s recommended metrication for Britain, but it was another 100 years before a government board was set up in 1969 to promote and coordinate metrication.

Once Britain joined the European Economic Community in 1973, the government committed to adopting the metric system. Regulations introduced in 1995 required goods to be sold in metric units in the UK.

In a high profile case in 2002, five market traders – know as the “metric martyrs” – lost their court battle for a right to trade in pounds and ounces. The battle was supported by celebrities including the comedian John Cleese and politicians including Boris Johnson.

Rees-Mogg, who had a cabinet role to identify Brexit opportunities, has been a long-term supporter of using imperial measurements. The proposed change is however unlikely to be hailed as a significant Brexit dividend.

“Not one constituent, ever, has asked for this,” Conservative MP Alicia Kearns tweeted earlier this year. “This isn’t a Brexit freedom. It’s a nonsense.”

BEIS officials say the purpose of the consultation was to examine how greater choice could be given to businesses and consumers. The government has not yet said when the response to the consultation will be published.

As Jayawardena (the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) announced his new role by visiting an intensive chicken farm and made little mention of nature, instead focusing on food security.

Says it all! – Owl

Helena Horton www.theguardian.com

The head of Natural England and the chair of England’s largest landowners’ organisation are to meet the new environment secretary to urge him not to scrap or water down rewilding schemes.

Tony Juniper, who will meet Ranil Jayawardena along with the CLA chair Mark Tufnell on Tuesday, pointed out that swathes of prime land were being used for golf courses, housing and other infrastructure but political focus was on the small amount that would be rewilded.

There has been concern that the new government might roll back nature recovery schemes put in place by the previous administration, in which landowners and farmers are paid for improving nature.

The business secretary, Jacob Rees-Mogg, is said to have pushed back against the schemes, while Jayawardena announced his new role by visiting an intensive chicken farm and made little mention of nature, instead focusing on food security.

Speaking at the Gathering nature festival at Wild Ken Hill in north Norfolk, Juniper said: “Some of [this prime land] is under golf courses, so it is not only nature and other things.”

He said alongside food security “we also need to catch carbon, we also need to avoid flood risk. We also need to have places for healthy outdoor enjoyment and recreation, we need land for biodiversity and nature recovery, you need land for water infrastructure, and housing.

“There’s probably more housing going on land with high agricultural value than there is rewilding projects. And all of this stuff needs to be on the table at once.”

Tufnell, whose organisation represents 33,000 landowners, added that he hoped the new administration would listen to them, and that they realised nature recovery was the future.

He said: “We are meeting the secretary of state on Tuesday, and I will be asking the same questions that we have debated this morning. We do need to accelerate environment land management and we need to see a recovery in nature. It’s a totally false narrative that you can have food or you can have nature. You have to have both, and it’s perfectly possible.”

Some at the event were concerned that the government would try to cut the schemes. Lee Schofield, a senior site manager at RSPB Haweswater, said: “I am very concerned, so I’m not sure what else to say. It’s terrifying. And we just have to hope that what they may try to enact does not get through the checks and balances that are in place to stop us going backwards.”

Some conservationists are more optimistic about the prospect of nature recovery as they believe Liz Truss’s government may not be around for long – so might not be able to cause much damage to the schemes even if it wanted to.

Jake Fiennes, the head of conservation at the Holkham national nature reserve and author of Land Healer, said: “We have a government that potentially is only going to be around for 18 months. We have set this ball rolling. There’s environmental restoration already in place that is happening. I think that actually we are on a trajectory, and I think this momentum is not going to stop.”

Others agree; Benedict Macdonald, who works with landowners to rewild with the Real Wild Estates Company, said his clients disagreed with anti-nature comments from government figures.

He said: “The backlash against this government, especially from the landowners and farmers, will be from them saying: ‘Why are you standing in the way of me doing better things and handing down sustainable land to my children?’ And that’s a very powerful thing that I don’t think 18 months of government is going to sink.”

Juniper said: “I don’t see any reason why we need to be making any departures from those policies at the moment. I look forward to working with ministers on finding the very best ways forward during the months and years ahead.”