Campaign 8
Back the Builders of Britain
Make Britain a country where good businesses can start, grow and scale.
Britain needs successful large companies. But every large company once had fewer employees, less capital and fewer lawyers.
A healthy economy must continually produce new challengers.
The campaign in 30 seconds
- —The scale: The UK had an estimated 5.7 million private-sector businesses at the start of 2025, with SMEs accounting for 99.85% of businesses.
- —Government policy: The Government's Small Business Plan focuses on barriers to growth, access to finance, skills and new opportunities for SMEs. A one-year progress report was published in July 2026.
- —Our test: Is Britain actually becoming easier to start and scale a productive company in?
- —Success looks like: More businesses making the journey from 5 employees to 50 to 500.
Announcements are not the outcome
Business policy should not be judged by the number of schemes launched. Judge it by what happens to businesses.
The Builders Scorecard
Track:
The New Entrant Test
Every major new regulation should answer: Would an established multinational absorb this requirement much more easily than a credible new competitor?
If so, government should examine whether proportionality, phasing or simpler compliance could achieve the same public objective.
This is not an argument against regulation. Good regulation protects workers, consumers, competition and the environment.
But badly designed regulation can unintentionally protect established businesses from new competitors.
What we are asking government to do
Britain on Purpose calls on government to:
- 01Apply an Entrepreneurship and Scale-Up Test to major economic policy.
- 02Apply a New Entrant Test to significant regulation.
- 03Publish measurable outcomes from the Small Business Plan.
- 04Track SME participation in government procurement.
- 05Track regional access to finance.
- 06Measure whether more productive companies actually scale.
What we are not proposing
This is not a deregulatory free-for-all. Nor should businesses receive permanent support simply because they are small.
The objective is an economy in which productive firms can enter, challenge incumbents and grow.
What would change our mind
- —If a regulation produces substantial public benefit that clearly outweighs the cost to new entrants, we should support it.
- —If a business-support scheme fails to generate measurable benefits, we should not defend it merely because the intention was good.
Policy in Practice
Business policy is full of second-order effects. A tax relief may encourage investment but reduce Treasury revenue. Regulation may provide valuable protection while imposing disproportionate costs on smaller firms. Public procurement rules may protect standards while making it harder for new entrants to bid.
Track:
The New Entrant Test fits perfectly here:
- —Would this policy affect a five-person company very differently from a multinational?
Compare the alternatives
We apply the same test to every party: is the proposal costed, independently verified, and does it define how success will be measured?
Current Government
The Government's Small Business Plan covers access to finance, late payments, business support, skills, high streets and opportunities for smaller firms.
Expected benefit
Better finance, faster payment and practical support could improve cash flow, investment and survival among smaller businesses.
Potential trade-off
Support programmes cost public money, while new employment and regulatory requirements may increase business costs. The net effect must be measured across different types of firm.
Conservatives
The Conservatives propose abolishing business rates for thousands of high-street businesses and reducing energy and regulatory costs.
Expected benefit
Lower fixed costs could improve business survival, hiring and investment on high streets.
Potential trade-off
Business rates fund local services, so the replacement funding mechanism would need to be identified and tested. Energy and regulatory cost reductions depend on the specific measures chosen.
Liberal Democrats
The Liberal Democrats are developing at least 100 measures to cut, consolidate or streamline administrative burdens while preserving consumer and worker protections. They also support closer trade integration with Europe.
Expected benefit
Less paperwork and lower trade friction could reduce costs and expand markets, particularly for smaller exporters.
Potential trade-off
Removing poorly chosen rules can weaken protections, while closer alignment with Europe would limit some scope for regulatory divergence.
Reform UK
Reform proposes raising the VAT-registration threshold to £150,000, removing income tax on qualifying overtime, reducing employment taxes for British workers and replacing GDPR with a lighter privacy regime.
Expected benefit
Lower tax and compliance costs could encourage small firms to expand, hire and invest.
Potential trade-off
The party prices the VAT-threshold change alone at £2.4 billion a year. Tax reductions need funding, and lighter privacy rules could weaken protections or complicate data flows with Europe.
Green Party
The Greens propose a 38% windfall tax on specified large UK retail-bank profits and using part of the proceeds to double Employment Allowance for SMEs.
Expected benefit
Higher Employment Allowance could lower payroll costs for eligible smaller firms and support employment.
Potential trade-off
Revenue depends on bank profits and behaviour. Banks may respond through lending, pricing or investment decisions, so the amount raised and wider market effects require independent testing.
Where there is common ground
All five approaches accept that smaller businesses face disproportionate costs and that reducing unnecessary burdens is desirable. The disagreement is mainly about which costs to cut, how to fund the reductions and whether closer trade integration with Europe helps or constrains British businesses.
Britain on Purpose: The Test
Start → Survive → Invest → Hire → Scale → Export → Productivity. Would an established multinational absorb this requirement more easily than a credible new competitor?
Back the people who build, employ and take the risk.