
Rachel Reeves makes promise on tax rises - as she vows not to repeat last Budget
Rachel Reeves has insisted ordinary workers won't be clobbered by higher taxes - and she has no plans for another mega tax-raising Budget.
The Chancellor faces a battle to fill the black hole in her spending plans after U-turns on winter fuel and disability benefit cuts wiped out most of her £10billion headroom. And speculation is mounting that she will be forced to put up taxes to balance the books.
Senior Labour figures including ex-leader Neil Kinnock have floated the idea of a wealth tax on the mega-rich. Ms Reeves has refused to rule out the idea, saying she would not be drawn into speculation months ahead of the next Budget.
But speaking to the Mirror today that she would keep her manifesto pledge to protect the payslips of working people. Asked who was covered by the definition of 'working people', the Chancellor said: "You can see what we mean by the manifesto commitments we made, and we said, no increases in income tax, national insurance or VAT on working people, and we stuck to that in the Budget last year.
"It was a tough budget last year, we raised £40billion worth of tax, but we did that by asking the wealthiest and businesses to pay more to sort out the problems with our public finances that we inherited from the Tories, but also to put £29billion extra a year into the National Health Service. We did that without increasing any of those taxes, those key taxes that working people pay."
She added: "I don't think we need to define more than that, really. We made a commitment in our manifesto to not increase those taxes. We didn't last year. It remains our commitment for this Parliament."
Ms Reeves said previously she had no intention of doing another Budget on that scale again. Asked if the commitment remains, she said: "Yes. Last year, I had to deal with the inheritance that I faced, which included a £22billion black hole in the public finances."
She said the cash from the Budget was vital to put public services on a firmer footing after years of Tory neglect, including work to begin driving down NHS waiting lists.
She said: "Everyone can see that in the last year, the world has changed, conflicts in the Middle East, worries about security in Europe, disruptions to trade." But she added: "We're a strong economy. We can weather those storms."
Ms Reeves visited Westleigh Methodist Primary School, in Leigh, on Monday, as she unveiled a £500million Better Futures Fund to help get cash to schemes for at-risk children. It comes as the Government faces pressure from its own backbenchers to do more to tackle child poverty.
The Tory two child benefit limit is shaping up to be another flashpoint between MPs and the Government, which would cost around £3.5billion a year to scrap. Asked if axing it was still on the table after the disability cuts U-turn, she said: 'I'm not wedded to any particular policy. I absolutely share the desire to lift kids out of poverty and you can see in the budget and the spending review that we've already done, my commitment to that."
Ms Reeves said driving down poverty was personal to many members of Keir Starmer's Cabinet, as a number of top ministers grew up in difficult circumstances. Pointing to the Better Futures Fund, she said she saw this as part of a "down payment" made to help struggling kids, including the recent expansion of free school meals provision.
She said: "[Reducing] child poverty is about putting more money in the pockets of families. This is about expanding the opportunities, the horizons, the ambitions of young people. It's about improving school attendance and school attainment.
"It's about putting kids in touch with different opportunities in the local community... to give children opportunities to do things that they might not otherwise get the chance to do.
"Today, I was in a learning through play session with children, and some of these kids have not got toys at home. Certainly, they don't have the opportunities that my children or that any of us would want our children to have."
She added: "We know there's loads of children who turn up at school when they're four or five for reception and they're not ready for school, not potty trained, can't sit in a chair, can't eat with a knife and fork, don't recognize letters, don't recognize numbers.
"All of this is about not just ensuring that parents have more money in their pockets, but that is really important to me... it's also about expanding the opportunities, and that means working individually with children and families to extend and expand their opportunities and life chances."
She added: "I got involved in politics in the first place because I wanted more children from ordinary backgrounds and from some of the poorer backgrounds as well, to get a good start in life. Where you start shouldn't be your destiny."

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Rhyl Journal
16 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Davey proposes major shake-up of green energy contracts to ‘slash bills'
The Liberal Democrat leader will call for a 'rapid' transition to Contracts for Difference (CfD), which work by guaranteeing generators a fixed 'strike price' for electricity regardless of the wholesale price. CfDs are awarded by Government auction to firms bidding to produce renewable energy for the UK grid, with developers either paid a subsidy up to the strike price or repaying the surplus while the market price fluctuates. In a speech at the Institute for Public Policy Research think tank, Sir Ed will say that only 15% of green power is produced under such contracts, with the rest still coming from an old legacy scheme. The 2002 Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROC) scheme, which does not involve a strike price guarantee, closed to new generation in 2017 but still governs some projects on contracts due to expire by 2037. Sir Ed will argue that the ROC scheme was introduced 'when ministers didn't have the foresight to realise that renewable power would get so much cheaper over the next two decades'. He will call on ministers to move all legacy agreements on to CfD, saying the transition would slash household energy bills by 'breaking the link' between gas prices and electricity costs. The party leader is expected to say: 'People are currently paying too much for renewable energy. 'But not for the reasons Nigel Farage would have you believe. 'Because generating electricity from solar or wind is now significantly cheaper than gas – even when you factor in extra system costs for back-up power when the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining. 'But people aren't seeing the benefit of cheap renewable power, because wholesale electricity prices are still tied to the price of gas.' Sir Ed will add: 'Unlike Contracts for Difference, companies with ROCs get paid the wholesale price – in other words, the price of gas – with a subsidy on top. 'Subsidies paid through levies on our energy bills – costing a typical household around £90 a year.' The Lib Dem leader will describe the legacy system as 'manifestly unfair' for consumers and call on the Government to 'start today a rapid process of moving all those old ROC renewable projects on to new Contracts for Difference.' Taking aim at the Reform UK and Tory leaders, who have both expressed scepticism about the Government pledge to achieve net zero by 2050, Sir Ed will say: 'The narrative – seized upon by Nigel Farage and Kemi Badenoch – says the reason energy bills are so high is that we're investing too much in renewable power. 'And if we just stopped that investment – and relied more on oil and gas instead – bills would magically come down for everyone. 'The experience of record high gas prices in recent years shows that's not true… we know that tying ourselves ever more to fossil fuels would only benefit foreign dictators like Vladimir Putin – which is probably why Farage is so keen on it. 'But refusing to engage hasn't stopped his myths from spreading, from gaining traction in the new world of fake news. So we must change that.'

Rhyl Journal
16 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Former defence secretary makes ‘no apology' for Afghan injunction
Thousands of people are being relocated to the UK as part of a secret £850 million scheme set up in the wake of the breach. Sir Ben Wallace has said that the decision to apply for the gagging order was 'not as some are childishly trying to claim, a cover up' and that he believed that if the leak had been reported it would have 'put in peril those we needed to help out'. It came as Defence Secretary John Healey said that the person involved was 'no longer doing the same job'. A dataset containing the personal information of nearly 19,000 people who applied for the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) was released 'in error' in February 2022 by a defence official. The Ministry of Defence only became aware of the breach when excerpts from the dataset were posted anonymously on a Facebook group in August 2023, and a superinjunction was made at the High Court in an attempt to prevent the Taliban finding out about the leak. Writing in the Telegraph, Sir Ben said that when he was informed of the 'error' he was 'determined that the first priority was to protect all those that might be at risk'. 'I make no apology for applying to the court for an injunction at the time. It was not, as some are childishly trying to claim, a cover up,' he said. 'I took the view that if this leak was reported at the time, the existence of the list would put in peril those we needed to help out. 'Some may disagree but imagine if the Taliban had been alerted to the existence of this list. I would dread to think what would have happened.' Sir Ben left office shortly after the then-government became aware of the breach, having announced some time earlier that he intended to step down as defence secretary. The leak led to the creation of a secret Afghan relocation scheme – the Afghanistan Response Route – in April 2024. The scheme is understood to have cost around £400 million so far, with a projected cost once completed of around £850 million. A total of around 6,900 people expected to be relocated by the end of the scheme. It is understood that the unnamed official had emailed the dataset outside of a secure government system while attempting to verify information, believing the dataset to only have around 150 rows. However, there were more than 33,000 rows of information which were inadvertently sent. Downing Street declined to say on Tuesday whether the official involved had faced disciplinary action or was still employed by the Government. Mr Healey later told the News Agents podcast that 'they are no longer doing the same job on the Afghan brief' and that 'this is bigger than the actions of a single individual'. Pushed on whether anybody had lost their job, Mr Healey said: 'I'm actually not going to get into the personnel matters.' The injunction was in place for almost two years – covering Labour and Conservative governments. Mr Healey offered a 'sincere apology' on behalf of the Government in the Commons on Tuesday, and said he had been 'deeply uncomfortable' in being unable to speak about it in Parliament. Kemi Badenoch also said sorry on behalf of the Conservatives. Speaking to LBC on Tuesday evening, the Tory leader was asked whether she would apologise on behalf of the Conservatives who were in office at the time of the breach. She said: 'On behalf of the government and on behalf of the British people yes, because somebody made a terrible mistake and names were put out there… and we are sorry for that. 'That should not happen. And this is one of the tough things about, you know, being a minister, which is why even the Government – the Labour Government, now this didn't happen when they were in power – they are apologising as well.'


Sky News
21 minutes ago
- Sky News
Most important part of chancellor's annual Mansion House speech was what wasn't said
The real story from Tuesday night's Mansion House was more what didn't happen than what did happen. These speeches are traditionally the chancellor's big annual opportunity to announce reforms to the financial sector, and to the way the government taxes and regulates the money system. Speculation was rife in the run-up to this one that Rachel Reeves would impose new constraints on the amount that people can put into tax-free ISA savings. Some wondered, too, whether the chancellor would impose new taxes on the banking system, softening the blow slightly by loosening the capital requirements and certification rules that make it harder to recruit top bankers. In the event, neither happened. The chancellor did not announce any changes to the ISA scheme, though she added that she "will continue to consider further changes to ISAs". She didn't announce an increase of the bank levy, as some suspected, though she did loosen some of the regulations facing bankers. There was a host of other plans announced, collected into a package Ms Reeves has dubbed the "Leeds Reforms" (after the city which contains her constituency - also home to many financial firms). The chancellor said these amounted to "the most wide-ranging package of reforms to financial services regulation in more than a decade". But given the previous chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, made very similar noises three years ago when he announced his own "Edinburgh Reforms", and given many in the financial sector judge that very little has changed, you have reason to be a little sceptical. Impactful reforms None of which is to say you won't be affected by any of the reforms announced on Tuesday night. If you are planning to buy a home, one change just announced (actually by the Bank of England, not the Treasury) should serve to make more high loan-to-value mortgages available for buyers - in particular, mortgages at more than 4.5 times a buyer's income. However, perhaps the most significant of all the elements of the chancellor's speech wasn't the "Leeds Reforms" or the fact that there weren't changes to the ISA regime or the bank levy - it was the fiscal elephant in the room. Because only a couple of weeks ago, everything changed. The government performed a drastic u-turn on its welfare reforms, leaving a gaping hole in the public finances, that (all else equal) will have to be filled with either higher taxes, less spending or more borrowing. Shortly afterwards, the chancellor was pictured in tears in the House of Commons. Markets responded dramatically. This was the chancellor's first speech since that moment. So the real question on Tuesday night was whether she would refer either to the black hole or to the tears. Well, there was a glancing reference to the latter. Referring to a recent visit to a school, where she was asked what job she most wanted in the world, the chancellor said: "Given the events of the last few weeks, I suspect many of you would sympathise if I had said: 'anything but chancellor.' "But I didn't. "I am proud to stand here tonight and address you for a second time at Mansion House as the Chancellor of the Exchequer." Speaking of the fiscal rules hemming her in, she also said: "This government and I remain committed to our non-negotiable rules." All of which raises the question: how will the government meet those rules? The most likely answer is: higher taxes. The real question is: which taxes, and when do we learn about them? The Mansion House speech provided no further answers.