Andy Burnham must act now to stop Britain falling further in global esteem (Image: Getty)
There’s barely a senior figure in the Labour Party who understands business, and it shows. They’re party careerists, flag-waving activists, union die-hards and hare-brained academics who think money grows on trees, particularly a magical tree called big business, which they can strip clean whenever they need some cash. These economic illiterates all agree that the best way to make Britain richer is to tax more and spend more. The result? A staggering 160,000 businesses have closed in the last six months, as business creation hits the lowest level in decades.
Tony Blair kept the anti-business tendency under control, but it was never going to last. Not with Gordon Brown, Ed Miliband and Jeremy Corbyn in the Labour leadership pipeline. Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves made soothing noises and said they would work in partnership with business. It was a partnership of sorts – business gave and Labour grabbed all it could. Then came back for more.
Reeves’s £25billion National Insurance raid on employers made young people too expensive to hire, then Angela Rayner’s employment rights reforms made them too risky. Ed Miliband’s energy policy was the final blow. His ban on new North Sea oil and gas drilling was designed purely to impress his activist mates, and he didn’t give a damn about the damage to investment, jobs, production and energy security.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Burnham promised a more pragmatic approach to the North Sea, which we assumed included opening up the Rosebank oilfield and Jackdaw gasfield. Yet as winter looms and the energy crisis builds, he’s still dithering.
Burnham talks about reversing decades of deindustrialisation, but for him the only solution is more government spending. He doesn’t seem to get that having some of the highest energy bills in the world makes it impossible to compete. Now we risk the lights going out in a winter energy crisis.
Norwegian oil giant Equinor has said it may shun further investments in the UK if Rosebank and Jackdaw are not approved. Jim Johnson, chief executive of FTSE 250 engineering group Hunting, says Britain had become “less investable than Venezuela”, blaming our “crazy” politics and untrustworthy politicians. He shut down 80% of his group’s UK operations, and will never invest in this country again concluding: “We have just given up hope on the UK.”
He’s not the only one. Oil giant BP, a FTSE 100 stalwart whose dividends underpin countless pensions, has given up on the UK, selling its North Sea assets. Guess where its taken its expertise? Venezuela. In August, it signed an exploration and production license with the Venezuelan government.
The Latin American country has been devastated by years of socialist mismanagement under Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro. Now one of our biggest blue-chips reckons it’s a better bet than us. Hardly surprising, given that UK Miliband slapped a 78% windfall tax on North Sea oil production, and Healey may drive it higher in this month’s budget.
Financial services is one of our most successful industries, contributing around 12% of the UK’s tax revenues. On Thursday, Chancellor John Healey just called Britain’s banks a “jewel in the crown”. Yet within hours, reports emerged that he was considering hiking the windfall tax on them in his Budget.
The world’s top banker, JP Morgan boss Jamie Dimon, has already warned a City windfall tax could harm jobs and force him to cancel a planned £3billion investment. Yet Healey bans on about miner’s lamps. It’s just laughable.
A bank tax raid will backfire by cutting credit to consumers and businesses, slowing investment and growth, and driving up mortgage rates. Try explaining that to Healey, or anyone in Labour. They won’t understand what you’re talking about. They’ll just rant on about greedy ‘banksters’ and shout you down.
Another foreign entreprenuer has given up. Jensen Huang, boss of silicon chip maker Nvidia, the world’s biggest company, flew into the UK this week to tell us we lack the “entrepreneurial spirit” adding: “If there was a million ways to win, you find the one reason not to do it” He’s laughing at us too.
Millions have fled failed state Venezuela. Last year, a record 69,000 workers abandoned the UK. Bloomberg says we’ve lost £120billion of wealth as billionaires leave or loosen their ties with Britain. Starmer and Reeves started this process. Unless Burnham and Healey wake up, the exodus will only accelerate, and we’ll all be the poorer. It’s no laughing matter.
Andy Burnham Just Made Britain a Global Laughing Stock – ‘Even Worse Than Venezuela’
Britain’s economic future has become the subject of a fierce political argument, with critics of Prime Minister Andy Burnham warning that high operating costs, uncertainty over taxation and disagreements about energy policy could undermine the country’s reputation as a destination for international investment.
The controversy intensified after a sharply worded opinion article published in October 2026 argued that Britain was becoming less attractive to businesses than countries traditionally regarded as riskier investment destinations. The comparison with Venezuela is deliberately provocative, reflecting growing frustration among some business figures over the direction of British economic policy rather than establishing that the two countries are experiencing equivalent economic conditions. <Link url=”https://www.aol.co.uk/articles/andy-burnham-just-made-britain-132000000.html” title=”Read the October 2026 commentary”/>.
For Burnham, who took office in July, the challenge is to demonstrate that his promises of national renewal can translate into stronger productivity, higher investment and sustainable economic growth. For his critics, the immediate question is whether the government’s approach to taxation, energy and employment is making it harder for British companies to compete internationally.
Why the Venezuela Comparison Has Caused Such a Reaction
Comparing Britain with Venezuela is an attention-grabbing way to express concern about economic competitiveness. Venezuela has experienced a prolonged economic crisis involving falling production, severe hardship, political instability and large-scale emigration. Britain, by contrast, retains established financial markets, major universities, a substantial services sector and a legal system that attracts international businesses.
Nevertheless, the comparison has become a political talking point because some executives believe that Britain is making investment decisions unnecessarily difficult.
The October commentary cited criticism from Jim Johnson, chief executive of engineering group Hunting, who reportedly described Britain as “less investable than Venezuela”. The statement reflected his assessment of the British investment climate, particularly the pressures facing industrial businesses.
Such remarks deserve attention because executives make decisions that can have consequences for employment, regional economies and government revenues. However, one business leader’s experience cannot establish that every international company shares the same view. Investment conditions differ across industries, and individual firms weigh factors such as customer demand, labour costs, energy prices, taxation and access to skilled workers differently.
The underlying question is whether the United Kingdom can preserve its existing economic advantages while creating conditions that encourage companies to invest for the long term.
Energy Policy at the Centre of the Dispute
Energy has become one of the most contentious parts of Britain’s economic debate. Manufacturers, engineering companies and other energy-intensive businesses depend on reliable supplies at prices that allow them to compete with overseas rivals.
Critics of the government’s approach argue that restrictions on new North Sea oil and gas development, combined with uncertainty about future policy, risk discouraging investment before alternative energy sources can fully meet demand. They contend that domestic production, renewable power and energy security should be considered together rather than treated as competing priorities.
Supporters of a faster transition away from fossil fuels take a different view. They argue that Britain must reduce emissions, expand renewable generation and develop the infrastructure required for a lower-carbon economy. In their view, long-term investment in clean energy can create jobs, reduce exposure to international fossil-fuel price shocks and establish new industries.
The dispute is therefore not simply about whether Britain should produce more oil and gas. It concerns how quickly the energy system can change, what infrastructure is needed during the transition and how the costs will be distributed between businesses and households.
For Burnham, the practical test is whether his government can provide enough clarity for investors to plan. Companies considering major projects often need confidence that rules will remain sufficiently predictable over many years. Frequent changes, unclear timetables or uncertainty about future returns can delay investment even when demand for a product remains strong.
The North Sea Investment Question
Britain’s North Sea industry illustrates the tension between economic growth, energy security and climate policy.
Oil and gas projects can support jobs, specialist engineering companies, supply chains and tax revenues. But they also involve substantial upfront costs, uncertain future prices and long investment horizons. Decisions about developing particular fields depend on regulatory approvals, commercial assessments and expectations about future demand.
The October criticism argued that delays and uncertainty surrounding projects such as Rosebank and Jackdaw could weaken investor confidence. It also highlighted the reported decision by BP to sell North Sea assets and pursue opportunities elsewhere, including a Venezuelan exploration and production agreement.
These developments have fuelled arguments about whether Britain is losing opportunities to countries willing to offer companies clearer commercial terms. Yet individual corporate decisions have several possible explanations, including portfolio strategy, geological prospects, expected returns and changes in global energy markets. They should not automatically be attributed to one government policy.
The larger issue is whether Britain can maintain a credible energy strategy that balances domestic production, affordability, emissions targets and long-term investment.
Could Higher Taxes Discourage Investment?
Taxation is another major source of tension between the government and business.
Ministers must fund public services, infrastructure, defence and social programmes while managing public borrowing. Businesses, meanwhile, argue that they need sufficient returns to invest, hire employees and develop new products. When taxes rise or the future tax burden becomes difficult to predict, companies may reconsider expansion plans.
Critics have focused on employer National Insurance changes introduced under the previous Labour government and on employment reforms that they believe could increase the cost or perceived risk of hiring staff. They also fear that further tax increases could appear in future Budgets, adding to uncertainty for employers.
Burnham’s government faces pressure to demonstrate that its approach will not undermine the private sector on which economic growth and tax revenues depend. Higher public spending may support demand and improve infrastructure, but spending alone cannot guarantee that businesses will become more productive or competitive.
Equally, lower taxes do not automatically produce higher investment. The outcome depends on the wider economic environment, including access to finance, infrastructure, consumer demand, workforce skills and the stability of government policy.
The most important question is whether tax decisions form part of a coherent economic strategy that gives businesses a reasonable basis for planning.
Financial Services and the Risk of Losing Confidence
Britain’s financial services sector is a significant contributor to the economy. London remains an international centre for banking, insurance, investment management and professional services, supported by specialist expertise and an extensive network of associated industries.
That position should not be taken for granted. Financial institutions can compare different jurisdictions when deciding where to establish teams, expand operations or allocate investment. If executives believe that taxes, regulation or political uncertainty make Britain less competitive, they may direct some new activity elsewhere.
The October commentary raised concerns about the possibility of additional taxes on banks and referred to warnings from major financial-sector figures about the effects of policies that increase operating costs. These concerns are part of a wider debate about how the government should balance revenue raising with the need to preserve investment.
There are arguments on both sides. Supporters of sector-specific taxes may contend that profitable institutions can contribute more towards public finances. Opponents warn that poorly designed levies can affect lending, investment and employment, with costs potentially passed on to customers.
The effects depend on the precise design of a policy, the response of financial institutions and the broader economic circumstances. Claims that a proposed tax would inevitably destroy jobs or that it could have no negative consequences should both be examined against evidence rather than assumed.
Jobs, Wealth and the Wider Economy
Concerns about investment ultimately matter because of their possible consequences for ordinary workers.
When companies postpone projects, the immediate effects may be difficult to see. Over time, however, fewer investments can mean less demand for construction, engineering, research and specialist services. Businesses may also have fewer resources available for training or improving productivity.
If major employers reduce their domestic operations, the consequences can spread beyond the companies themselves. Suppliers may lose contracts, local businesses may see lower spending and communities can become more dependent on a narrower range of employers.
There are also reasons to be cautious about dramatic claims concerning Britain’s economic decline. Headlines about businesses closing, wealthy individuals moving abroad or companies expanding overseas do not necessarily show that the entire economy is collapsing. Proper assessment requires clear definitions, comparable time periods and evidence distinguishing permanent departures from ordinary business restructuring.
Britain faces genuine challenges, including weak productivity growth, pressure on public finances, high living costs and the need to modernise infrastructure. But it also has significant economic assets. The question is how effectively the government uses those assets to address persistent weaknesses.
Burnham’s Promise of Economic Renewal
Burnham has presented his political programme as an attempt to rebuild Britain’s industrial strength and spread economic opportunity beyond the country’s traditional centres of wealth. That ambition requires more than government announcements. It depends on whether businesses, workers and investors can see a credible path from policy promises to practical results.
The government will need to show that energy policy can support reliable and affordable supplies, that the tax system can fund public services without unnecessarily discouraging investment, and that employment reforms can improve working conditions while allowing companies to recruit and grow.
It must also explain how public investment will be evaluated. Projects should be judged by their ability to improve productivity, strengthen infrastructure, create sustainable employment or deliver other clearly stated public benefits. Without measurable outcomes, promises of transformation risk becoming a source of political disappointment.
Business confidence alone is not the only measure of successful government. Economic policy also affects workers’ rights, regional inequality, environmental standards and the quality of public services. A strategy that benefits investors but leaves large sections of the population struggling with housing and living costs would face its own serious criticisms.
The challenge is to pursue these goals together rather than assume that one automatically guarantees the others.
A Test of Britain’s International Reputation
The comparison with Venezuela captures the intensity of the current argument, but it should not obscure the more useful questions facing Britain. Is the country attracting enough productive investment? Are energy and labour costs competitive? Can businesses plan confidently over the long term? Are government policies producing measurable improvements in wages, productivity and living standards?
Those questions matter far more than a provocative slogan.
Burnham’s critics believe that uncertainty over taxation and energy is putting Britain’s economic reputation at risk. The government, in turn, must demonstrate that its plans can support growth while meeting its wider responsibilities.
Britain is not Venezuela, and the two economies should not be treated as interchangeable. But the concerns expressed by business leaders highlight a challenge that no government can afford to ignore: international investors have choices, and confidence must be earned through credible policy, effective implementation and results.
Ultimately, Burnham will be judged not by the strength of the headlines surrounding him, but by whether Britain’s economy becomes more productive, whether businesses are willing to invest and whether households see a meaningful improvement in their living standards. That is the real test behind the argument over Britain’s standing in the world.