Welfare U-turn raises questions over Labour's tax plans
But they also removed a key plank of Sir Keir Starmer's welfare reform agenda, delaying changes to Pip until after a review of the benefit not due to conclude until autumn 2026.
With no clarity on when the changes will be enacted or what they might entail, the Chancellor now faces a fiscal headache as a forecast £4.8 billion in welfare savings have been whittled away to nothing.
Economists at the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) and Resolution Foundation think tanks warned that Tuesday's concessions meant Ms Reeves could now expect no 'net savings' by 2029/30 – a key year for meeting her fiscal targets.
IFS deputy director Helen Miller said the move had effectively halved the Chancellor's 'margin of error' against her main fiscal rule, once again raising the possibility of tax rises in the autumn.
On top of that, a stuttering economy and global instability could mean she has even less room for manoeuvre than expected.
Ms Miller said: 'Since departmental spending plans are now effectively locked in, and the Government has already had to row back on planned cuts to pensioner benefits and working-age benefits, tax rises would look increasingly likely.'
The Resolution Foundation's Ruth Curtice agreed that there would be no savings in 2029/30, but suggested changes to universal credit – almost the only part of the Government's proposals still standing – could save money in the longer term.
On Wednesday morning, the Conservatives accused Labour of making billions in unfunded spending commitments, including both the U-turns on welfare and the partial reinstatement of winter fuel payments.
In a letter to Ms Reeves, shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride demanded to know where the money was coming from, asking: 'Will you raise tax or increase borrowing?'
Ministers have repeatedly insisted that Labour will not raise taxes on 'working people', specifically income tax, national insurance or VAT.
But Ms Reeves also remains committed to her 'iron clad' fiscal rules, which require day-to-day spending to be covered by revenues – not borrowing – in 2029/30.
Meanwhile, Sir Keir himself will face a grilling from MPs on Wednesday as he attempts to repair relations with his backbenchers.
The weekly session of Prime Minister's Questions comes just a day after 49 of his own MPs voted against his welfare reforms – the biggest rebellion of his premiership so far – while several backbenchers described the Government's handling of the issue as 'chaotic' and 'a shambles'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
4 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
QUENTIN LETTS: Rachel Reeves looked rinsed by dejection. But Sir Keir did not acknowledge her sadness - nor was any sympathy flowing from Angela Rayner
Rachel Reeves was a picture of melancholy from the moment she entered the chamber for PMQs. She was almost the last cabinet minister to arrive – it looked briefly as if there would be no room for her. Already her eyes were poached-eggish. 'Hay fever?' I wrote in my notebook. As the 37-minute session unfolded it became increasingly obvious that the affliction was something more serious than a high pollen count. We were subjected to the sight – the extraordinary, troubling, upsetting sight – of a Chancellor in open tears. Her face was gaunt. She wiped her eyes. Her lower lip crumbled. She rubbed the tip of her nose with a sleeve and at one point cast her gaze up at the press gallery with its craning, inquisitive scribes. Hers was a look of harrowed anguish. 'A personal matter,' said the Treasury some 15 minutes after the end of PMQs. Journalists hesitated at this. Even the most senior ministers of the Crown must, naturally, be permitted due privacy. Yet this was also a parliamentary event. Here was a Chancellor of the Exchequer in evident, sustained distress while sitting in full view of the nation and, crucially, the markets. Sir Keir Starmer was being asked legitimate questions about the nation's stretched finances. He was also quizzed about the career prospects of that same Chancellor who was sitting beside him. And she was weeping. The tears started to flow while Kemi Badenoch tore into Sir Keir about the government's troubles on Tuesday, when welfare reforms collapsed at a cost of some £5 billion to the Treasury. Those reforms were scrapped, it was said, while Ms Reeves was out of the capital. Mrs Badenoch, on jaunty form, noticed how forlorn the Chancellor was looking. 'She's pointing at me,' said Kemi, 'but she looks absolutely miserable. Labour MPs are going on the record, saying the Chancellor is toast. The reality is she's a human shield for his incompetence.' This was not much more than the usual Wednesday argy-bargy. Such rough things are occasionally uttered at PMQs and they do not usually provoke waterworks. Ms Reeves continued to point and to mouth disagreement with Mrs Badenoch while the Conservative leader invited the PM to repeat his past, rash declaration that Ms Reeves will remain in post for the entire parliament. 'Will she really?' asked a sceptical Badenoch. 'Well she certainly won't!' retorted Sir Keir, referring to Kemi's own chances of survival. Sir Keir continued with some further routine jabs at his opponent. Beside him Ms Reeves pulled her lips into a tight bow and did much blinking. She looked worse than 'miserable'. She looked rinsed by dejection. One shoulder was partly turned on the gawping galleries. She sat at a sunken angle. Two of her fingers tapped a fast rhythm on one knee. Sir Keir contrived not to repeat his promise that his Chancellor was unsackable. Mrs Badenoch: 'How awful for the Chancellor that he couldn't confirm that she will stay in place.' This was when the tears accelerated. Her left eye twitched. She wiped the right one. She nodded, perhaps hoping to look resilient. A few times she swung her beautifully kept hair, as if trying to shake herself out of these doldrums. Sir Keir did not make any acknowledgement of her sadness. On her other side she had that chill presence, Bridget Phillipson. Nor was any obvious sympathy flowing her way from Angela Rayner. The one person to be kind to her was a ministerial aide, Matt Rodda, who gave her a tube of Extra Strong Mints. A group of Labour women behind the Speaker's Chair watched her with concern. Ellie Reeves, minister without portfolio, was several places down the front bench. She cast the occasional glance at her older sister. When the session finally ended – what torment it had been – it was Ellie who put an arm round her and clutched her right hand. They departed together, the Chancellor leaving that furnace as fast as she could.
Glasgow Times
5 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
Dunn family raise concerns Foreign Office will try to ‘hide' final review report
Harry's mother, Charlotte Charles, as well as other family members, are due to meet David Lammy on Wednesday following an invitation for him to 'hear the family's views and concerns'. The review is not set to scrutinise the role or actions of the US government, but will examine the support the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) offered the Dunn family after the teenager was killed by a former US state department employee in a road crash in 2019. The Dunn family spokesman Radd Seiger told FCDO officials they were concerned there was 'no explicit provision for the publication of the final report' in the review's proposed terms of reference. His words prompted an invitation to meet with Mr Lammy on Wednesday afternoon ahead of the review's official announcement, which is expected on Thursday. Mrs Charles said she was 'apprehensive' ahead of the meeting, adding: 'I won't accept anything less than a full, open and transparent process.' Mr Seiger told the PA news agency the family will 'have no part in any process that lacks transparency'. Anne Sacoolas, the American driver who killed Harry, had diplomatic immunity asserted on her behalf following the incident outside RAF Croughton in Northamptonshire before a senior Foreign Office official said they should 'feel able' to put her on the next flight home. Ahead of the meeting, Mr Seiger told PA: 'We are grateful to the Foreign Secretary for making time to meet us today. 'That said, it is not lost on us that the only reason we appear to have been called in is because we asked for only one basic and reasonable assurance – that Anne Owers' report will be published. 'That request appears to have put the cat amongst the pigeons ahead of the government formally announcing the inquiry tomorrow. Harry's mother, Charlotte Charles, as well as other family members, are due to meet David Lammy on Wednesday (Stefan Rousseau/PA) 'The fact that it has prompted such an urgent response gives us real concern that publication of the report may not have been the Government's intention.' Mr Seiger continued: 'Although we will not get ahead of ourselves, if that proves to be the case, I can say categorically on behalf of the family that we will have no part in any process that lacks transparency. 'It would defeat the entire purpose of the inquiry and would represent a betrayal of everything Harry stood for and the brave fight the family put up on his behalf. 'We have always been grateful for David Lammy's support over the years. 'It must follow that Anne Owers' report, the first and only detailed look into those failures must be published. Without that, we cannot move forward. 'We owe it to Harry, to our public institutions, and to every future family who might find themselves in a similar nightmare.' Mrs Charles said any attempt by the Government to 'hide' the final report 'fills me with dread'. She told PA: 'I feel incredibly apprehensive going into this meeting. 'After everything we've been through, the idea that the Government might try to hide Anne Owers' report fills me with dread. 'We have never wanted anything more than the full truth and for lessons to be learned, not just for Harry, but to stop any other family from suffering like we have. 'I won't accept anything less than a full, open and transparent process.' The FCDO has been approached for comment.
Glasgow Times
6 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
Starmer pledges to review minimum barrier heights in multi-storey car parks
Gabriel Santer died after falling from the top of a multi-storey car park in the city centre in October 2020. The Prime Minister said he wanted to 'prevent future tragedies', and the Government will conduct a call for evidence on minimum barrier heights in car parks. This came after Labour MP Peter Dowd urged Sir Keir to back his calls to increase the minimum required height of guarding. Mr Dowd's Multi-Storey Car Parks (Safety) Bill also proposes 24-hour staffing of such car parks, to improve safety. During Prime Minister's Questions, Mr Dowd, MP for Bootle said: 'Gabe Santer, a 15-year-old, fell to his death from a multi-storey car park in Liverpool in 2020. He's one of the many dying in such tragic circumstances, including in my constituency. 'My Multi-Storey Car Parks (Safety) Bill seeks to prevent such deaths. 'Will the Government look carefully at its content as part of a national suicide prevention strategy?' Labour MP for Bootle Peter Dowd raised the case of Gabe Santer (Chris McAndrew/PA) The Prime Minister replied: 'The answer is yes, we will look at the content of it, and I'm grateful to him for raising it.' He added: 'Across the House, we have all got tragic experience of suicide, and our thoughts are with Gabe's family and with his friends. 'We will conduct a call for evidence on part K of the building regulations about minimum guarding heights, so that necessary protections are in place to prevent future tragedies. We will also look at the contents of the Bill.' Defence minister Maria Eagle previously presented 'Gabe's Law' to Parliament in 2023, in a bid to reform the safety of car parks.
