logo
Benefits rebels are eyeing their next target: the rich

Benefits rebels are eyeing their next target: the rich

Telegraph02-07-2025
Having forced Sir Keir Starmer to climb down on benefits cuts, Left-wing Labour MPs scent blood in the water.
The question is what will the rebels demand next from the Prime Minister? And can Downing Street regroup to take back control?
Wealth taxes
The most obvious crunch point is the autumn Budget, when – on its current trajectory – the Government must choose between a series of unpalatable options.
Rachel Reeves has staked her credibility on being the 'Iron Chancellor', who will not budge her fiscal rules to get borrowing under control.
But worsening economic forecasts, rising debt interest rates and costly about-turns have left another promise of hers at risk: no more large tax increases before the next general election.
It is here where rebels will press their advantage, with some now calling for a raid on wealth to balance the books.
Andy McDonald, one the 49 Labour MPs who voted to throw out the welfare Bill even after ministers made significant concessions, is among them.
He singled out two ideas for new wealth taxes to The Telegraph on Wednesday. The first is a 2 per cent tax on assets of more than £10 million, which is an idea being pushed by the Patriotic Millionaires UK campaign group, and the second is increasing capital gains tax in line with income tax.
'It is the broadest shoulders argument. 'Distributed to each according to his need.' That's not Marx, it's the Bible,' Mr McDonald said.
'I've made the case for the last six months for wealth taxes. I'll continue to do so in the next six months because it's right.'
Another rebel had a similar message on welfare taxes: 'I think it is inevitable. I don't think the Chancellor [Rachel Reeves] has got any options left.
'I think they're also going to have a conversation about income tax. I don't know if they have the strength or authority to do that, but it's going to come about.'
The calls echo one of the suggestions made by Angela Rayner in a memo she sent to Ms Reeves that was revealed by The Telegraph in May, proposing measures to raise money without making spending cuts.
However, the rebels will not be without their opponents.
Liz Lloyd, the new Downing Street policy chief, 'scandalised' colleagues at a recent meeting by asking about existing wealth taxes and raising concerns about their impact on the mission to boost economic growth, according to the Financial Times.
This raises the possibility that – far from introducing new wealth taxes – some in Sir Keir's inner circle may be mulling over diluting their non-dom crackdown.
The rebels not being a homogenous group will present another challenge.
The strength of the uprising against the welfare Bill was that it was not comprised of just the 'usual faces' on the Left, with moderate heads of Commons committees leading the charge.
While some push for more taxes, other rebels are attempting to water down the inheritance tax hike on farmers.
Immigration and Donald Trump
Sir Keir may have rowed back his tough rhetoric on immigration, saying he 'deeply' regrets using the phrase 'island of strangers' after it led to accusations that he had echoed language from Enoch Powell's 'rivers of blood' speech.
But policies tightening up the visa system remain – could this become a rallying point for the Left?
Another potential clash is over Sir Keir's willingness to ingratiate himself with Donald Trump, who will briefly visit the UK this month before enjoying a full state visit in September.
British public opinion is firmly disapproving of the US President, according to the polls. Labour MPs in private are just as vociferous, with some uneasy of Sir Keir's buttering up of his counterpart.
Could a reshuffle save Starmer?
Downing Street's options for a reset are numerous.
There is speculation that a ministerial reshuffle of some form is being planned for either this month – before the parliamentary summer recess – or upon its return in the autumn, with mutterings about those at risk.
Liz Kendall, the Work and Pensions Secretary, oversaw the specifics of the welfare package that had to be shredded to avoid defeat.
Peter Kyle, the Science Secretary, has walked back his support for artificial intelligence proposals after a campaign backed by celebrities such as Sir Elton John that demanded stronger copyright protections.
Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, has rubbed some colleagues up the wrong way with his championing of international law, though he could be salvaged by a friendship with Sir Keir that long predates politics.
Should Sir Keir choose to rearrange his Cabinet, which is by no means a certainty, any moves risk creating new headaches.
Thrusting newbies who are not promoted on to the Government benches could become disillusioned. One Labour aide noted that none of the Downing Street sycophants looking for promotions spoke out about welfare, and not rewarding them could have consequences.
Those demoted in any reshuffle will also have their noses out of joint. A sacked minister can create more political problems than an underperforming one.
And then there is the Number 10 team itself. Sir Keir notably swung a supportive arm around Morgan McSweeney, his under-fire chief of staff, at the Cabinet gathering on Tuesday morning.
'We will not turn on our staff, including our chief of staff, without whom none of us would be sitting around this cabinet table,' Sir Keir remarked, according to The Times.
But are others safe? Claire Reynolds, who was appointed Sir Keir's political director, oversees relations between MPs, the party and Downing Street – links that broke down over welfare.
Supporters of Sir Alan Campbell, the veteran Labour MP who is in charge of delivering the votes to pass laws as Chief Whip, are firmly defending his handling of the benefits reforms.
He is said to have repeatedly warned those in Downing Street about the scale and severity of opposition for months. If so, did those in the centre not respond accordingly? And to what consequences?
One area Number 10 is already looking to beef up is its economics brief, with the hiring process for a senior economist to keep an eye on Ms Reeves's policy agenda being in train.
It is nothing new for governments to face tussles on policy and pressure for personnel shake-ups. But what gives this welfare rebellion its political bite is its size and how early it has come for this Prime Minister.
Sir Keir, a politician who talked about the need for a decade of renewal in opposition, is only just approaching his one-year mark in office and yet, is being bounced by backbenchers into billion-pound changes.
Rebellions past are not always an accurate predictor of those yet to come.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Kemi Badenoch says she no longer considers herself Nigerian
Kemi Badenoch says she no longer considers herself Nigerian

The Independent

time29 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Kemi Badenoch says she no longer considers herself Nigerian

Kemi Badenoch has said she no longer identifies as Nigerian and has not renewed her Nigerian passport since the early 2000s. Speaking to Gyles Brandreth's Rosebud podcast, the Conservative leader, who was born in London and raised in Lagos and the United States, said: 'I'm Nigerian through ancestry, by birth, despite not being born there because of my parents, but by identity I'm not really." Ms Badenoch explained she felt "home is where my now family is'. The Tory politician was born in Wimbledon in 1980 before her parents took her home to Nigeria. She was one of the last people to receive birthright citizenship because she was born in the UK before these rules were abolished by Margaret Thatcher the following year.

Why millions of motorists denied payouts after car finance court ruling
Why millions of motorists denied payouts after car finance court ruling

The Independent

time29 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Why millions of motorists denied payouts after car finance court ruling

The Supreme Court ruled that car finance lenders are not liable for hidden commission payments to millions of drivers, overturning a previous Court of Appeal decision. This decision significantly reduces the potential compensation payout for lenders from an estimated £45bn to between £5bn and £15bn. The court rejected arguments that the payments were 'bribes' or that car dealers had a 'fiduciary duty' to customers, but upheld one case where the finance relationship was deemed unfair. Despite the ruling, consumers who paid particularly large commissions may still be eligible for compensation under the Consumer Credit Act. The Financial Conduct Authority is expected to announce a redress scheme for cases where the relationship is deemed unfair, with experts advising consumers to await further guidance.

Supreme Court puts brakes on car finance payouts but it's not end of road
Supreme Court puts brakes on car finance payouts but it's not end of road

Times

time33 minutes ago

  • Times

Supreme Court puts brakes on car finance payouts but it's not end of road

All it took was a statement from the Financial Conduct Authority in January last year announcing it would 'undertake work' on car loans to set off more than 18 months of turmoil in one of Britain's biggest consumer finance markets. Now, with a landmark ruling on Friday from the country's highest court, consumers, motor finance lenders and car dealers finally have some clarity on the potential scale of any consumer compensation the industry might have to pay. It is good news for the lenders who are on the hook for any redress. This is because the Supreme Court overturned the main arguments put forward by the consumers who brought the cases that might have resulted in a compensation crisis for motor finance providers akin to the £50 billion payment protection insurance (PPI) redress saga. • Consumers denied car finance payouts by Supreme Court While lenders may still end up paying billions in compensation, the worst-case scenario for the industry, which one City analyst had pegged at £44 billion, appears to have been avoided. It is the latest twist in a scandal that had caused consternation at the very top of the government over fears of the size of the hit lenders may face. While motor finance has been around since early in the 20th century, it has exploded in popularity in the UK in recent decades. Between 80 per cent and 90 per cent of new cars are bought using finance. The market is huge, with £18.4 billion in finance provided for 646,080 new cars and £21.3 billion for 1.4 million used vehicles in the 12 months to May, according to the Finance & Leasing Association, which represents the industry. The issue at the heart of the furore is the commissions that lenders pay to car dealers acting as brokers in the sale of motor finance. • Discretionary car finance commission was a disaster waiting to happen They have been in the crosshairs of the FCA, the City regulator, for almost a decade. In 2017, the authority announced a review of the car loans industry over concerns 'there may be a lack of transparency, potential conflicts of interest and irresponsible lending'. This culminated in the FCA's decision to ban so-called discretionary commissions. Under this payment model, the commission paid to the dealer was linked to the interest rate paid by the borrower, which the dealer was allowed to set. This created an obvious conflict because dealers earned more commission if they charged higher interest rates. The authority's ban came into force in January 2021. The regulator estimated that it would save consumers £165 million a year. Yet controversy over commission did not go away. Customer complaints to motor finance firms about pre-ban deals surged. Borrowers argued that commissions had not been disclosed, car dealers had failed to give impartial advice and that they therefore had not received the best deal. There was also a rise in county court claims. Most grievances were rejected by firms and went up to the Financial Ombudsman Service, an independent body that adjudicates on unresolved complaints. It published its first two decisions on representative cases in January last year. One of the disputes related to Black Horse, the car loans division of Lloyds Banking Group that is the UK's biggest motor finance provider, and the other related to a unit of Barclays. In both instances the ombudsman found against the lenders, deciding that they had acted unfairly because the discretionary commissions had not been disclosed to the borrowers, and that they should pay compensation. This immediately prompted the FCA to begin another review of the market, examining discretionary commissions as far back as April 2007, blindsiding the industry with its wide-ranging, retrospective nature. This fuelled City speculation that car loan providers, which include the lending arms of car manufacturers as well as banks, would ultimately be forced to pay consumer compensation totalling billions of pounds and, inevitably, a whole industry of claims management companies and law firms seeking to cash in on redress claims quickly sprang up. • 23m people expecting compensation for car finance scandal Industry data compiled by the authority covering most of the car loans market suggests there were about 25.9 million motor finance deals arranged between 2007 and the end of 2020. Some 14.6 million of these included discretionary commissions of about £8.1 billion. It was just weeks after the authority started its review that the fallout on lenders began to materialise. The first casualty was Close Brothers, a London-listed merchant bank that has large exposure to motor finance relative to the size of its wider loan book. Its shares had slumped following the regulator's announcement after investors identified the 147-year-old lender as being at risk from the inquiry. Their fears were confirmed in February last year when Close revealed it was scrapping its dividend to bolster its balance sheet to prepare for possible compensation payouts. It has since taken a series of emergency actions to boost its capital position by more than £400 million. A week after Close Brothers axed its dividend, Lloyds announced it was setting aside £450 million to cover its potential customer redress bill. This was increased by Lloyds to £1.15 billion this February following a seismic ruling last autumn by the Court of Appeal, which found against lenders MotoNovo and Close in three cases brought by consumers. It was this judgment, which stunned the industry because of its far-reaching implications, that was referred to the Supreme Court after the lenders involved appealed. While the FCA's continuing review relates to discretionary commissions, the Court of Appeal ruled that any commission was unlawful if it was not properly disclosed to, and consented to, by consumers, and that dealers, in their capacity as brokers, had to act in the best interests of their customers because they owed them a fiduciary duty. It also ruled that lenders were liable to compensate consumers for the commissions. By going much further than what had been required under regulation, it immediately caused chaos in the motor finance market, as lenders halted operations to check that they complied with the ruling, and prompted several banks to follow Lloyds by making compensation provisions. They included Santander UK, which set aside £295 million, Close, which has earmarked £165 million, and a £90 million provision by Barclays. The UK motor finance arm of BMW set aside more than £70 million, although this provision pre-dated the Court of Appeal ruling. All of this significantly increased estimates for the overall bill faced by the industry. Some lawyers warned the ruling could have implications for commissions in other areas involving brokers, such as asset finance and energy. • Car finance revival as memories of the mis-selling scandal fade The prospect of another PPI-style scandal unnerved the Treasury, not least because Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, has placed fostering the financial services at the heart of her efforts to boost Britain's faltering economy. This risked being undermined, not just by a big compensation crisis for lenders, but also by the frenzy of activity by claim-chasing companies and law firms that have been seeking to feast on the scandal. Yet the Treasury can breathe a sigh of relief. The Supreme Court on Friday rejected the idea that dealers owed a fiduciary duty to their customers and also dismissed the argument, which had been upheld by the Court of Appeal, that the commissions amounted to a bribe. The industry is not completely out of the woods, however. While the Supreme Court upheld two of the appeals made by the lenders, it backed consumers in the third case. • Common sense has triumphed over compensation culture The FCA also still has to make a decision about discretionary commissions. It previously signalled that it was likely to impose a redress scheme on the industry over these arrangements. It said on Friday night that it would confirm whether it will consult on a compensation scheme before markets open on Monday. Even so, the Finance & Leasing Association hailed the judgment as 'an excellent outcome'. The Treasury, which had been considering bringing in legislation to supersede the court ruling if it threatened a huge compensation blow to lenders, signalled that it would not intervene, with a spokesman saying it respected the judgment. Kate Scott, a partner at the law firm Clifford Chance, called it 'an eminently sensible, commercial decision from the Supreme Court. As any man on the street will confirm: car dealers act in their own interest'.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store