Billionaire Sir Jim Ratcliffe has told Sky News that Britain is ready for a change of government after scolding the Conservatives over their handling of the economy and immigration after Brexit.
While insisting his petrochemicals conglomerate INEOS is apolitical, Sir Jim backed Brexit and spent last weekend with Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer at Manchester United – the football club he now runs as minority owner.
“I’m sure Keir will do a very good job at running the country – I have no questions about that,” Sir Jim said in an exclusive interview.
“There’s no question that the Conservatives have had a good run,” he added. “I think most of the country probably feels it’s time for a change. And I sort of get that, really.”
Sir Jim was a prominent backer of leaving the European Union in the 2016 referendum but now has issues with how Brexit was delivered by Tory prime ministers.
“Brexit sort of unfortunately didn’t turn out as people anticipated because… Brexit was largely about immigration,” Sir Jim said.
More from Politics
“That was the biggest component of that vote. People were getting fed up with the influx of the city of Southampton coming in every year. I think last year it was two times Southampton.
“I mean, no small island like the UK could cope with vast numbers of people coming into the UK.
Advertisement
“I mean, it just overburdens the National Health Service, the traffic service, the police, everybody.
“The country was designed for 55 or 60 million people and we’ve got 70 million people and all the services break down as a consequence.
“That’s what Brexit was all about and nobody’s implemented that. They just keep talking about it. But nothing’s been done, which is why I think we’ll finish up with the change of government.”
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has indicated an election is due this year but Monaco-based Sir Jim is unimpressed by the Conservatives’ handling of the economy.
“The UK does need to get a bit sharper on the business front,” he said. “I think the biggest objective for the government is to create growth in the economy.
“There’s two parts of the economy, there’s the services side of the economy and there’s the manufacturing side. And the manufacturing, unfortunately, has been sliding away now for the last 25 years.
“We were very similar in scale to Germany probably 25 years ago.
“But today we’re just a fraction of where Germany is and I think that isn’t healthy for the British economy… particularly when you think the north of England is very manufacturing based, and that talks to things like energy competitiveness, it talks to things like, why do you put an immensely high tax on the North Sea?
“That just disincentivises people from finding hydrocarbons in the North Sea, in energy.
“And what we need is competitive energy. So I mean, in America, in the energy world, in the oil and gas world, they just apply a corporation tax to the oil and gas companies, which is about 30%. And in the UK we’ve got this tax of 75% because we want to kill off the oil and gas companies.
“But if we don’t have competitive energy, we’re not going to have a healthy manufacturing industry. And that just makes no sense to me at all. No.”
‘We’re apolitical’
Asked about INEOS donating to Labour, Sir Jim replied: “We’re apolitical, INEOS.
“We just want a successful manufacturing sector in the UK and we’ve talked to the government about that. It’s pretty clear about our views.”
Sir Jim was keener to talk about the economy and politics than his role at struggling Manchester United, which he bought a 27.7% stake in from the American Glazer family in February – giving him an even higher business profile.
Image: Old Trafford stadium in Manchester. Pic: AP
Push for stadium of the North
He is continuing to push for public funds to regenerate Old Trafford and the surrounding areas despite no apparent political support being forthcoming. Sir Keir was hosted at the stadium for a Premier League match last weekend just as heavy rain exposed the fragility of the ageing venue.
“There’s a very good case, in my view, for having a stadium of the North, which would serve the northern part of the country in that arena of football,” Sir Jim said. “If you look at the number of Champions League the North West has won, it’s 10. London has won two.
“And yet everybody from the North has to get down to London to watch a big football match. And there should be one [a large stadium] in the North, in my view.
“But it’s also important for the southern side of Manchester, you know, to regenerate.
“It’s the sort of second capital of the country where the Industrial Revolution began.
“But if you have a regeneration project, you need a nucleus or a regeneration project and having that world-class stadium there, I think would provide the impetus to regenerate that region.”
Building society chiefs will this week intensify their protests against the chancellor’s plans to cut cash ISA limits by warning that it will push up borrowing costs for homeowners and businesses.
Sky News has obtained the draft of a letter being circulated by the Building Societies Association (BSA) among its members which will demand that Rachel Reeves abandons a proposed move to slash savers’ annual cash ISA allowance from the existing £20,000 threshold.
The draft letter, which is expected to be published this week, warns the chancellor that her decision would deter savers, disrupt Labour’s housebuilding ambitions and potentially present an obstacle to economic growth by triggering higher funding costs.
“Cash ISAs are a cornerstone of personal savings for millions across the UK, helping people from all walks of life to build financial resilience and achieve their savings goals,” the draft letter said.
“Beyond their personal benefits, Cash ISAs play a vital role in the broader economy.
“The funds deposited in these accounts support lending, helping to keep mortgages and loans affordable and accessible.
More on Rachel Reeves
Related Topics:
“Cutting Cash ISA limits would make this funding more scarce which would have the knock-on effect of making loans to households and businesses more expensive and harder to come by.
“This would undermine efforts to stimulate economic growth, including the government’s commitment to delivering 1.5 million new homes.
“Cutting the Cash ISA limit would send a discouraging message to savers, who are sensibly trying to plan for the future and undermine a product that has stood the test of time.”
The chancellor is reportedly preparing to announce a review of cash ISA limits as part of her Mansion House speech next week.
While individual building society bosses have come out publicly to express their opposition to the move, the BSA letter is likely to be viewed with concern by Treasury officials.
The Nationwide is by far Britain’s biggest building society, with the likes of the Coventry, Yorkshire and Skipton also ranking among the sector’s largest players.
In the draft letter, which is likely to be signed by dozens of building society bosses, the BSA said the chancellor’s proposals “would make the whole ISA regime more complex and make it harder for people to transfer money between cash and investments”.
“Restricting Cash ISAs won’t encourage people to invest, as it won’t suddenly change their appetite to take on risk,” it said.
“We know that barriers to investing are primarily behavioural, therefore building confidence and awareness are far more important.”
The BSA called on Ms Reeves to back “a long-term consumer awareness and information campaign to educate people about the benefits of investing, alongside maintaining strong support for saving”.
“We therefore urge you to affirm your support for Cash ISAs by maintaining the current £20,000 limit.
“Preserving this threshold will enable households to continue building financial security while supporting broader economic stability and growth.”
The BSA declined to comment on Monday on the leaked letter, although one source said the final version was subject to revision.
The Treasury has so far refused to comment on its plans.
The government has declined to rule out a “wealth tax” after former Labour leader Neil Kinnock called for one to help the UK’s dwindling finances.
Lord Kinnock, who was leader from 1983 to 1992, told Sky News’ Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips that imposing a 2% tax on assets valued above £10 million would bring in up to £11 billion a year.
On Monday, Sir Keir Starmer’s spokesperson would not say if the government will or will not bring in a specific tax for the wealthiest.
Asked multiple times if the government will do so, he said: “The government is committed to the wealthiest in society paying their share in tax.
“The prime minister has repeatedly said those with the broadest shoulders should carry the largest burden.”
He added the government has closed loopholes for non-doms, placed taxes on private jets and said the 1% wealthiest people in the UK pay one third of taxes.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves earlier this year insisted she would not impose a wealth tax in her autumn budget, something she also said in 2023 ahead of Labour winning the election last year.
Asked if her position has changed, Sir Keir’s spokesman referred back to her previous comments and said: “The government position is what I have said it is.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
5:31
Welfare: ‘Didn’t get process right’ – PM
The previous day, Lord Kinnock told Sky News: “It’s not going to pay the bills, but that kind of levy does two things.
“One is to secure resources, which is very important in revenues.
“But the second thing it does is to say to the country, ‘we are the government of equity’.
“This is a country which is very substantially fed up with the fact that whatever happens in the world, whatever happens in the UK, the same interests come out on top unscathed all the time while everybody else is paying more for getting services.
“Now, I think that a gesture or a substantial gesture in the direction of equity fairness would make a big difference.”
The son of a coal miner, who became a member of the House of Lords in 2005, the Labour peer said asset values have “gone through the roof” in the past 20 years while economies and incomes have stagnated in real terms.
In reference to Chancellor Rachel Reeves refusing to change her fiscal rules, he said the government is giving the appearance it is “bogged down by their own imposed limitations”, which he said is “not actually the accurate picture”.
A wealth tax would help the government get out of that situation and would be backed by the “great majority of the general public”, he added.
His comments came after a bruising week for Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, who had to heavily water down a welfare bill meant to save £5.5bn after dozens of Labour MPs threatened to vote against it.
With those savings lost – and a previous U-turn on cutting winter fuel payments also reducing savings – the chancellor’s £9.9bn fiscal headroom has quickly dwindled.
In a hint of what could come, government minister Stephen Morgan told Wilfred Frost on Sky News Breakfast: “I hold dear the Labour values of making sure those that have the broadest shoulders pay, pay more tax.
“I think that’s absolutely right.”
He added that the government has already put a tax on private jets and on the profits of energy companies.