M&S boss tells Labour: Take the handcuffs off business – as he brands tax policies ‘a crushing disappointment’
Developed over time first seen 1 day ago
Marks & Spencer chief executive Stuart Machin has urged Chancellor John Healey to reverse measures from the last two Budgets, arguing that higher taxes and business costs are holding back growth and pushing up prices. His criticism adds to pressure on the Government ahead of its Budget, with several business leaders calling for policies that support jobs and enterprise.
Machin criticised the rise in employers’ National Insurance, proposed workers’ rights, recycling rules, a £2 billion packaging tax and the business rates system. The article says the National Insurance changes introduced by Rachel Reeves raised the rate from 13.8% to 15% and lowered the threshold from £9,100 to £5,000, with an estimated £25 billion cost to businesses. Sir Martin Sorrell called for practical growth policies, while John Lewis boss Jason Tarry warned that higher taxes on large retailers could lead to shop closures.
- M&S chief says recent Budgets have burdened businesses.
- Business leaders want a Budget focused on jobs and growth.
- Employers’ National Insurance changes are estimated to cost £25 billion.
New here? Start with this
The Labour government has introduced various tax and policy changes affecting businesses since coming to power. The chief executive of Marks & Spencer has publicly criticised these policies, calling them "a crushing disappointment" and urging the new Chancellor to reverse course and restore conditions for business growth.
Stuart Machin's comments are significant because he is a major business leader, and his criticisms echo concerns from other prominent figures in retail and commerce. The policies he objects to include higher taxes on employers, new worker rights regulations, and various other business-related taxes and rules.
This intervention matters because business leaders' public statements carry weight in policy debates, and Machin's comments signal discontent within the business community. The timing is important—coming three weeks before the government's next Budget—suggesting this could influence policy decisions in the coming weeks.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Businesses argue that high employer National Insurance taxes and regulatory burdens directly reduce hiring, investment, and competitiveness, particularly in already-fragile sectors like retail. They contend that companies operating on thin margins cannot absorb these costs without cutting jobs or raising prices, ultimately harming the workers and consumers the government aims to help. Their position is grounded in the view that sustainable public finances require a growing, thriving business sector generating wealth and tax revenue, not one constrained by policies that discourage expansion and job creation.
The case against
The Labour government maintains it inherited a public sector in crisis requiring substantial investment to restore the NHS, schools, and social infrastructure. They argue that businesses and higher earners should contribute fairly to rebuilding these essential services through progressive taxation, and that worker protections and environmental standards reflect legitimate societal values. Their view is that long-term economic stability depends on these foundations—that well-resourced public services, educated workforces, and social cohesion are preconditions for business success, not hindrances to it.
Full account
The chief executive of Marks & Spencer has urged the new Chancellor to reverse decisions made in Labour's two previous budgets, characterising them as profoundly damaging to British business. Stuart Machin's intervention, published on Saturday, represents a significant moment of corporate dissent ahead of John Healey's inaugural fiscal event on 28 October under Andy Burnham's premiership. Mr Machin contended that industry required liberation from existing constraints rather than additional burdens, calling for a growth-oriented agenda that loosened restrictions on enterprise whilst boosting consumer spending power.
In his statement, Mr Machin described Labour's earlier budgetary decisions as a 'crushing disappointment' for stakeholders. He detailed how Marks & Spencer faced £150 million in new annual expenses and approximately £500 million in additional tax obligations resulting from recent policy choices. His criticism extended across multiple fronts: the National Insurance contribution increase on employers from 13.8 to 15 per cent, the lowering of the threshold from £9,100 to £5,000 annually, forthcoming recycling regulations, and proposed packaging taxation all featured prominently in his assessment of government overreach.
The retail leader specifically objected to the Deposit Return Scheme, which would impose a 20-pence charge on beverages, arguing the measure was economically irrational. He also warned that reforms to employment rights threatened to restrict Saturday working arrangements, characterising certain proposed regulations as misguided. The cumulative effect of these measures, Mr Machin suggested, had fallen disproportionately on entry-level workers and smaller food and farming suppliers, ultimately inflating costs for consumers at the till.
Other prominent business figures echoed concerns about the government's economic direction. Sir Martin Sorrell criticised an apparent preference for rhetorical growth commitments over substantive policy, whilst John Lewis leadership expressed reservations about retail-specific taxation. A Treasury spokesperson responded by affirming commitment to retail prosperity, asserting that long-term growth mechanisms—rather than immediate tax adjustments—represented the appropriate response to business cost pressures.
Where outlets differ
Source 1 frames this as a politically significant intervention damaging to Labour, emphasising the timing relative to Burnham's premiership and including broader critiques of government communications strategy and capital flight, whereas Source 2 adopts a more direct policy focus
Source 1 spotlights comments from Sir Martin Sorrell and tangential political criticism, whilst Source 2 provides granular financial details and specific policy mechanisms requiring reversal
Source 1 characterises business sentiment as a collective call for a 'job-creation Budget' using more dramatic language, whereas Source 2 presents Mr Machin's specific recommendations with greater technical precision
Source 2 includes the Treasury's official response statement, which Source 1 omits