
Four times Rachel Reeves got her maths wrong
Labour is under pressure to row back on its winter fuel raid after its dismal local election results.
Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, has admitted that 'people aren't happy' about the decision to strip 10 million retirees of their energy bill allowance, recognising it had been a topic on doorsteps during election campaigning.
The raid, which restricted eligibility for the winter fuel payment, was introduced last July to 'ensure economic stability and repair the public finances'.
On Tuesday, Mr Streeting told the BBC the policy was not being formally reviewed, but said the Government was 'reflecting on what the voters told us' after Labour lost two-thirds of the council seats it was defending.
Amid speculation over whether the party could row back on its raid on pensioners, The Telegraph outlines the four Labour policies that are on track to backfire.
Non-dom reforms
Labour's 'non-dom' reforms could cost taxpayers billions of pounds, according to a new report.
In her October Budget, Rachel Reeves abolished the non-dom regime which allowed wealthy foreigners to avoid paying tax on overseas income.
The tax raid is expected to bring in £33bn for the Treasury, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility. However, this figure depends on high-income non-doms staying in the country and paying tax here.
The Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) estimated that if 40pc of non-doms left the country in response to the policies, the Treasury would miss out on £7.1bn over the course of the Parliament. If half of non-doms left, the losses would mount to £12.2bn.
The average non-dom pays £85,000 in income tax, according to the CEBR. The average UK employee pays £4,000. In its predictions, the OBR estimated that only 12pc of non-doms will leave the country in reaction to the legislative changes.
However, a survey by Oxford Economics found nearly two thirds of non-doms were considering fleeing the UK. The decision to abolish the regime has already triggered a wealth exodus, according to tax advisers.
Lizzie Murray, of accountancy firm Saffery, said some of her clients were planning to leave the UK or had already done so because of the reforms.
'Families left last summer partly because of the non-dom changes, but also because of the VAT on school fees from January. I also had other internationally mobile clients who left the UK before April 5 so they were non resident as of the current financial year.'
She continued: 'My overall feeling is that where clients can leave the UK, either in the short term or next few years, they are planning to do so.'
The Treasury has said it 'does not recognise' the figures in the CEBR report.
Private schools
Private schools have been forced to pay 20pc VAT in order to raise £1.7bn a year for state schools.
But, Labour's own impact assessment published on the day of the October Budget suggests 35,000 private school pupils could be pushed into state schools by the policy, piling pressure on local authorities.
Ms Reeves was reportedly warned by her own civil servants it would harm poorer families.
The Independent Schools Council (ISC), which represents around 1,300 private schools, has said that private school enrolments fell by 10,000 pupils in September 2024.
The ISC has calculated that educating these 10,000 additional pupils in the state system would cost the Department for Education £92.8m.
Financial advisers last year separately warned that schools were preparing to use a loophole to claim back hundreds of thousands of pounds from the Treasury to 'soften' the blow of higher costs.
Advisers said that schools were delaying new capital projects in order to benefit from full tax relief. New projects completed after January 1 could be eligible for up to a 20pc tax rebate under the Capital Goods Scheme (CGS), while those completed as long as 10 years ago may qualify for partial relief, representing potentially a sizable windfall for some schools.
Tax relief allows schools to claim back VAT for new developments such as libraries and sports facilities. The money could then be used to pay some or all of the VAT bills on fees that schools are facing.
The High Court is currently reviewing whether the VAT raid is in breach of the human rights of children.
Winter fuel allowance
The Government is under pressure to revisit the winter fuel allowance cut following Reform's success in the local elections.
The Chancellor announced in July 2024 that retirees would no longer be entitled to the winter fuel payment unless they also receive pension credit. She claimed the policy would raise £1.3bn in the first year and £1.5bn annually after that.
However, the cuts triggered a surge in applications for pension credit, which could dent the cash savings from the policy.
The Department for Work and Pensions received 235,000 pension credit claims in the seven months following the announcement – an 81pc increase on the same period in 2023-24. Of these, 117,800 were awarded, up 64pc year-on-year.
Steven Cameron, of pension firm Aegon, said: 'Last year's loss of the winter fuel allowance has clearly not been forgotten or forgiven and the Government may need to do more to prove its credentials in supporting pensioners as well as workers.'
Capital gains tax
In her October Budget, the Chancellor aligned capital gains tax rates for shareholders with those of property investors. As a result, the basic and higher rate rose from 10pc and 20pc respectively to 18pc and 24pc.
However, analysis suggests the tax raid has backfired, with investors selling up before the new rates came into effect.
Data from HM Revenue and Customs shows that revenue from capital gains tax has fallen from £14.5bn to £13bn year-on-year.
The Office for Budget Responsibility recently revised its forecast for capital gains tax revenue, wiping £23bn off the projected tax take by 2030.
Higher capital gains tax rates can deter investors from selling up while others may choose not to buy assets in the first place.
Hashtags

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


BBC News
11 minutes ago
- BBC News
Job losses at Totally as urgent NHS call firm collapses
A healthcare firm, which provided urgent care services in NHS 111 call centres, has gone into administration with the loss of 100 which employed 1,400 people across several sites in the UK, including Stockton-on-Tees and Newcastle, said workers had lost their jobs across the group but did not confirm how many had been affected at each company has been sold to PHL Group, another healthcare provider to the NHS - with the immediate transfer of 600 of its Vance, joint administrator at EY-Parthenon, said he was pleased that hundreds of jobs and "critical frontline NHS services" had been safeguarded by the sale. Derby-based Totally had been struggling since losing the NHS 111 support contract in February. Mr Vance said: "We are pleased to have agreed the sale of Totally plc which safeguards critical frontline NHS services and includes the retention of over 600 jobs." Follow BBC North East on X, Facebook, Nextdoor and Instagram.

Western Telegraph
12 minutes ago
- Western Telegraph
Fears of damage to nature from Labour planning reforms overblown, minister says
Housing minister Matthew Pennycook hit out at criticism that the plans would allow developers to get away with damaging habitats if they contributed to a nature restoration fund, dubbed 'cash to trash'. Mr Pennycook dismissed concerns several times, including calling them 'misrepresentation', 'patently false', and saying some critics had 'flagrant misconceptions' of what the Bill would do. Campaigning groups, including the National Trust, RSPB, Wildlife Trusts and Marine Conservation Society have warned they believe the reforms will significantly weaken environmental law. They said it could allow developers to effectively disregard environmental rules, and increase the risk of sewage in rivers, flooding and the loss of woods and parks. It came as Labour faced a potential rebellion in the voting lobbies on Monday over the fears. One Labour MP encouraged the Government to 'rescue something positive from the wreckage of this legislation' as he tabled an amendment. However, Mr Pennycook said the current 'status quo' between the environment and development was not working. In turn, he said, proposed changes would lead to a 'win-win' for both. He said: 'The nature restoration fund will do exactly as its name suggests. It will restore, not harm nature. It is a smart planning reform designed to unlock and accelerate housing and infrastructure delivery while improving the state of nature across the country.' I have been consistently clear that building new homes and critical infrastructure should not, and need not, come at the expense of the environment Matthew Pennycook He later told MPs: 'I feel obliged to tackle a number of the most flagrant misconceptions head on. 'First, some have claimed that driven by a belief that development must come at the expense of the environment, the Government is creating a licence for developers to pay to pollute. A cash-to-trash model, as some have dubbed it. In reality, the nature and restoration fund will do the precise opposite. 'I have been consistently clear that building new homes and critical infrastructure should not, and need not, come at the expense of the environment. It is plainly nonsense to suggest the nature restoration fund would allow developers to simply pay Government and then wantonly harm nature.' Mr Pennycook said the money would be given to Natural England, which would develop plans on how to better preserve nature. In response to a question from shadow housing minister Paul Holmes about the capacity of Natural England to take on the responsibilities, Mr Pennycook said: 'We've been perfectly clear that this new approach is not a means of making unacceptable development acceptable.' He continued: 'Another claim put forward has been that the Bill strips protections from our protected sites and species, allowing for untrammelled development across the country. Again, I'm afraid this amounts to nothing less than wanton misrepresentation.' This Bill constitutes a regression on environmental protection Ellie Chowns Green Party MP Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) said the Office for Environmental Protection warned the Bill reduces environmental safeguards. 'This Bill constitutes a regression on environmental protection,' she said. Mr Pennycook said: 'The Government's view that the Bill is not regressive. Environmental delivery plans (EDPs) will secure improved environmental outcomes that go further than simply offsetting harm as required under current legislation.' Suggestions that the Bill would allow for the destruction of irreplaceable habitats or create irretrievable harm to them were 'patently false', he told MPs. The Conservatives accused the Government of 'greenwashing', over its plans. Mr Holmes said: 'While developers may cheer the ability to pay into a nature restoration fund instead of taking direct responsibility for mitigations, we should ask, is this really restoration, or is it greenwashing?' Mr Pennycook said the new laws were needed to 'speed up and streamline' Labour's housing target of 1.5 million homes, clean energy goals and aim to approve at least 150 'major economic infrastructure projects'. Labour MP Chris Hinchliff described the nature restoration fund as a 'kernel of a good idea', but added: 'The weight of evidence against how it has been drafted is overwhelming.' The North East Hertfordshire MP said his amendment 69 will give 'ministers the opportunity to rescue something positive from the wreckage of this legislation, ensuring environmental delivery plans serve their purpose without allowing developers to pay cash to destroy nature'. He added: 'It would ensure conservation takes place before damage, so endangered species aren't pushed close to extinction before replacement habitats are established, and it outlines that conservation must result in improvements to the specific feature harmed, protecting irreplaceable habitats like chalk streams.'


The Independent
21 minutes ago
- The Independent
Why is Kemi Badenoch engaging in a new culture war on the burqa?
In clear evidence she is attempting to appeal to the right, Kemi Badenoch recently announced a review of Conservative policy on the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and promised the end of 'lawfare' against service personnel accused of crimes as well as curbs on 'activist' judges. Over the weekend, prompted by developments in Reform UK, she also said she wouldn't speak to any constituent who came to one of her surgeries wearing a burqa, and described sharia courts and cousin marriage as 'insidious'. It feels a bit desperate… What is Kemi Badenoch up to? You don't have to be an expert engineer, as she is, to work it out. Reform UK and Nigel Farage have been eating her lunch, opening up a 10-point lead in the opinion polls, taking eight county councils from the Conservatives, humiliating Tory candidates in the Runcorn and Hamilton (Scottish parliament) by-elections, grabbing media attention (albeit not always positive) and generally behaving like the 'real' opposition – more rallies, more headlines, more ideas, more presence and momentum. Even a leader as self-confident as Badenoch has cause to be worried. What is she doing? Exactly what her critics on the right demand: attempting to appeal to ex-Conservatives who have been abstaining or defecting to Reform UK. This explains the 'culture war' assault on the independent judiciary, net zero, and human rights legislation (plus the tentative interventions on the burqa, sharia law and cousin marriage). Badenoch does point out the complexities, such as how the ECHR affects the Good Friday Agreement, and the need to take time to get things right this far away from a general election. Badenoch's line is that Labour and Reform both promise all things to all people, and she's not prepared to do that. Why are some Tories unhappy with Badenoch's leadership? Sources grumble that she doesn't work hard enough, gives an arrogant impression, and that she's not very good at Prime Minister's Questions. There's also frustration at the lack of eye-catching initiatives (as Tony Blair once called populist stuff), failure to take on Farage directly, and sheer fear of more heavy electoral losses to Reform. The smaller the Tories' representation at every tier of government, the lower their profile and relevance and the more they look like a dying party. Unlike Margaret Thatcher in opposition from 1975-79, Badenoch can't just rely on the failures of a Labour government. Crucially, the Tories now have a formidable and unprecedented challenge from the right that makes Badenoch's lack of urgency look fatal. All she can do is say she's getting better at the job of leader of the opposition, which is a tough gig. One hopeful move is that she's allowed shadow chancellor, Mel Stride, to denounce the Liz Truss era mini-Budget (without actually saying sorry). Is Badenoch popular in the party? She won the leadership election last autumn among the membership by a clear but not overwhelming margin over Robert Jenrick of 56.5 per cent to 43.5 per cent, but among MPs by only one vote over Jenrick and five ahead of third-placed James Cleverly (42, 41 and 37 MPs respectively. According to the regular Conservative Home poll of activists, Badenoch is now incredibly unpopular given her role. She stands on a net zero approval rating, way below top of the flops Jenrick (+63), Chris Philp (+39) and Stride (+34). What happens next? A possible tricky by-election in North East Somerset and Hanham, where ex-Labour MP Dan Norris was arrested and bailed on suspicion of rape, child sex offences, child abduction and misconduct in a public office and is currently sitting as an independent having been suspended from the party. He ousted Conservative Jacob Rees-Mogg at the general election, and normally this would become an easy Tory gain; but now the question is whether the Tories and Reform will fight each other, potentially letting Labour back in; or will they cooperate (formally or informally) to get Rees-Mogg back, whichever party he chooses to run for.