Starmer's benefits U-turn to blow £5bn hole in budget
Sir Keir Starmer risks blowing a £5bn black hole in the public finances after U-turning on benefit cuts in the face of a backbench rebellion.
The Prime Minister will cost the Treasury as much as £1.5bn by bringing back winter fuel payments for most pensioners, while up to £3.5bn more will be lost if he axes the two-child benefit cap.
A planned reduction in net migration could cost the Treasury £7bn more, according to Britain's fiscal watchdog.
It comes as Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, braces for another bleak set of forecasts amid speculation she will be forced to raise taxes in her autumn Budget.
Left-wing Labour MPs are clamouring for the Government to loosen the purse strings, with whips seeking to head off a potentially major rebellion.
Meanwhile Nigel Farage, the Reform leader, will this week attempt to outflank Labour on welfare by calling for winter fuel payments to be restored for all and the two-child benefit cap to go in full.
Angela Rayner, the Left-wing Deputy Prime Minister who called for tax rises in a leaked memo revealed by this newspaper, put on a show of support in TV interviews on Sunday.
Ms Rayner insisted she 'never' wanted to become prime minister and rejected speculation that the document was leaked to further her leadership ambitions.
The Deputy Prime Minister added that she was '100pc' behind Ms Reeves, and said she could not do a better job as prime minister than Sir Keir.
In her first public comments since the memo emerged, Ms Rayner said: 'I have no desire to go for the leadership of the Labour Party. My desire is to deliver for the people of this country who have given me opportunities beyond what I could have dreamed of.'
She also confirmed a formal leak inquiry is now underway to ascertain how The Telegraph was able to reveal the document, which outlined eight proposed tax increases and two benefit cuts.
Winter fuel payments
Sir Keir announced last week that more pensioners would get winter fuel payments, which are between £200 and £300, than his Government had originally planned.
There is a growing expectation in Whitehall that the specifics of that new position will come in the weeks ahead rather than at the autumn Budget, as Sir Keir first indicated.
The Treasury is planning to restore the payments, which had been stripped from nearly 10m pensioners last summer, to almost everyone in retirement except the very wealthy.
The money could then be removed from only the most well-off pensioners by clawing it back when they file a tax return, allowing Labour to still claim millionaires will not get the payments.
The changes are likely to mean far smaller savings for the Treasury than the £1.5bn that the measure was initially expected to raise. If the payment was stripped only from the million pensioners who are in the 45pc additional income tax rate bracket, for example, it would generate between £200m and £300m.
Two-child benefit cap
Additional pressure on the finances would come from scrapping the two-child benefit cap, which applies to Universal Credit.
Sir Keir initially kept the Tory policy when taking office, but The Observer reported this weekend that the Prime Minister wanted to remove it. Whitehall insiders cautioned that it has not yet been decided what – if anything – might replace the current limit.
Announcements on any changes to the cap are expected to come around the Budget, with the poverty strategy delayed from summer until then when the financial situation is clearer. Getting rid of the two-child benefit cap entirely would cost £3.5bn.
The possibility of the Treasury losing up to £5bn in annual revenue if both policies are abandoned in full would increase the need for new tax rises, spending cuts or looser borrowing rules.
Ms Reeves is already facing a difficult set of decisions with current economic forecasts suggesting she is in growing danger of breaking her fiscal rules.
Further factors
Other factors will shape how much money the Chancellor has to play with in her autumn Budget.
Home Office proposals to reduce net migration by 100,000 a year could have a knock-on impact on the Chancellor's headroom, with estimates suggesting an annual rise in borrowing of £7bn by the end of the decade.
Last week's announcement on above-inflation pay rises for the public sector could add drive spending up by £2bn to £3bn each year, creating additional pressures.
But new trade deals with America, India and the European Union are expected by the government to boost trade, which could bring much-needed additional tax revenue.
Treasury officials are also understood to be pressing the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the Government's official independent forecaster, to accept that the Labour Government's housebuilding drive will boost economic growth more than previously expected.
The most unpredictable factor could well be the decisions on trade protectionism taken by Donald Trump, the US President, which have knock-on impacts on UK economic forecasts.
Mel Stride, the shadow Tory chancellor, told The Telegraph: 'Labour have already lost control of the public finances and abandoned any pretence of fiscal responsibility.
'Now they are looking at loading up billions more in welfare spending, paid for either by higher taxes for working families or through yet more borrowing.
'When added to the likely cost of their panicked climbdown on Winter Fuel Payments, the Chancellor faces a potential £5bn black hole.
'Rachel Reeves's credibility is having new holes torn in it by the day. She is the 'tin foil' Chancellor, too weak to withstand pressure including from her own colleagues.
'We've already had fantasy economics from Reform – it appears Labour are following suit.'
A No 10 insider insisted that no final decisions have been taken on the new winter fuel payment position or the future of the two-child benefit cap.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
24 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Reeves's review was a sobering experience for hard-pressed taxpayers
SIR – Listening to the Chancellor's long list of extra government spending pledges, I thought to myself: 'Some poor sods are going to have to pay for all this.' Then I realised that I shall be one of them. J Alan Smith Epping, Essex SIR – After the promises announced by Labour in the spending review, the alleged inherited £22 billion black hole looks like a drop in the ocean. Roger Gentry Weavering, Kent SIR – Labour is forever trotting out that its aim is to help 'working people', with policies designed to improve their quality of life. In the past, the phrase covered manual workers, such as miners and steelworkers, but those industries no longer exist. So who are modern-day working people? Arguably, everyone who works, but Labour's definition is probably much narrower: any workers who vote Labour. Sandy Pratt Storrington, West Sussex SIR – The Chancellor's ambitions have numbers and dates attached, but there is no evidence that she has carried out any logistical analysis. Building requires trained personnel, materials and space. Schools need qualified teachers. The health service needs experienced medics. Power plants and grids must have thriving industries to supply and maintain them. Merely allocating money does not fulfil the ambition. Michael Marks Leominster, Herefordshire SIR – Rachel Reeves clearly lacks confidence in her plans, as throughout the spending review she took shots at opposition parties, using their alleged failings to justify her decisions. She should let her proposals speak for themselves. Given the poor state of the economy and its dismal growth on her watch, it was striking that the Chancellor did not fully explain how she will pay for her commitments. She said about her policies: 'These are my choices. These are this Government's choices. These are the British people's choices.' I don't think this claim would stand up if a general election were held today. Peter Williman Chatteris, Cambridgeshire SIR – When the next general election comes along, the only thing opposition parties will have to do to relieve the present administration of its responsibilities is remind the electorate of the Chagos and winter fuel fiascos. These offer sufficient evidence of incompetence – though plenty more is likely to be provided over the next four years. John Firrell Litton Cheney, Dorset Covered faces SIR – Reform UK and Kemi Badenoch are right to trigger a debate rather than campaign for a ban on all face coverings, including the burka. Jack Straw, as a Cabinet minister in Tony Blair's government, did the same thing in 2006. Both Mr Straw and Mrs Badenoch have said that they were not comfortable speaking to people whose faces were covered, and expressions therefore obscured, in their constituency offices. Surely the same concerns apply to teachers and students, judges and witnesses in court, and to medical professionals and patients, where it is essential to see each other properly. This should not be an outright ban, nor confined to religious apparel. B Brodkin Edgware, Middlesex SIR – I write to plead for open faces for men, women and children on behalf of the millions who, to a greater or lesser degree, rely on reading faces to grasp people's communications. I cannot talk with anyone of any background who has even a partially closed-off face. That's not rudeness – it's a practicality. And there are many millions like me, as nature is remarkably casual with hearing. Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con) London SW1 Why we need nuclear SIR – Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, and Labour deserve credit for deciding to build Sizewell C and invest in small modular reactors (report, June 10). We need these to provide clean, reliable energy and help us move away from fossil fuels, and to tackle climate change. More nuclear power will lead to well-paid jobs and greater energy security. Many environmentalists oppose nuclear power, but this is naive and unrealistic. Germany showed how closing nuclear plants and investing solely in renewables leads to burning more fossil fuels, as well as more expensive energy. Nuclear has high energy density and so requires less land and fewer materials. It is very good news that Labour stood up to the environmentalists, and, by investing in nuclear power, it is doing what is best for the country as well as the climate. Mark Dawes London E11 Space to remember SIR – Charles Moore (Notebook, June 10) writes about Holocaust Memorial Day and the risk of the concept being watered down. In January this year, I was surprised to see that this day was not printed on my calendar, so I emailed the company concerned to ask why. The reply stated that it wasn't able to include every important date, and this was partly so that there would be enough space in the boxes for customers to write in. Not only was another single entry printed for that date (Holiday, Australia), but room had also been found elsewhere in the calendar for Waitangi Day, Juneteenth and Presidents' Day. Priorities? Sue Thomas Monmouth Brotherly love SIR – My nephew, the second of my sister's three sons, sent his mother a card for Mother's Day (Letters, June 11) with the caption: 'If at first you don't succeed, try again. Love from your second son.' His older brother's reaction was not recorded. Prep school closures SIR – The announcement that two more private schools, in Putney and Kingston, are to close (report, June 7) following the Government's imposition of VAT on fees must be hugely upsetting for the children and parents involved. There are also 11,000 fewer pupils in private schools compared with a year ago. It has become obvious just how unpleasant this policy is. It highlights how the Left simply does not understand ambition, or parents' desire to do the best for their children. Which is the 'nasty party' now? Richard Allison Edinburgh Exasperating NHS SIR – I received an envelope from the NHS containing two sheets of paper. One said: 'This envelope contains a letter.' The other had details of an important appointment. It also told me that, if I needed to change the appointment, I would have to telephone the number provided, or I would be deleted from the list. But there was no number. About 20 minutes later, on my fourth try, I got to speak to a person. He didn't know that the number was not on the letter. Roger Hart Sheffield, South Yorkshire SIR – I am a blood donor (Features, June 7). We used to be able to book our next session on the same day we gave blood. Now we have to do it later online. It was so easy before. This is probably why donors don't always rebook and donations are wider apart. George Martin Warmington, Northamptonshire Lunch with Freddie SIR – I read Simon Heffer's article about his friend Freddie Forsyth (Features, June 11) with some sadness. In the early 1980s I was working in Hong Kong in Sutherland House, opposite the Hong Kong Club. One day I returned from lunch and, entering the lift to the 10th floor, I recognised Freddie, who was obviously going to the Foreign Correspondents' Club on the 11th floor. I had often been jealous of its members, as they invariably staggered out in the late afternoon, after a boozy lunch with colleagues, just as I was leaving the office. Each time I read his letters to The Telegraph, I found myself agreeing with his views. I would have given anything to have had lunch with him and put the world to rights. Neville Dickinson Morpeth, Northumberland Keeping churchyards trim – with a little help SIR – Grass and weeds in churchyards need controlling, but what is the best way of doing this? Strimmers and motorised mowers require energy and produce unattractive heaps of cut grass, and strimmers can damage gravestones. In theory, the parson can use the grass for hay-making, but that is probably uneconomic. Goats and sheep (Letters, June 11) require fenced churchyards, which must be properly managed. Helpfully, they consume wreaths and cut flowers, which have a finite life and need removing before they become unsightly. Grazing at regular and stated times is ideal. David J Critchley Buckingham The fundamental flaw in ID card proposals SIR – Robin Nonhebel (Letters, June 10) believes that identity cards should be introduced to help curb illegal immigration and abuse of the benefits system. However, for an ID card scheme to be appealing, voters would have to trust the state. Along with millions of others, I don't. Anyhow, I have an ID card already – it's called a passport or driving licence. William Rusbridge Tregony, Cornwall SIR– Robin Nonhebel is quite correct. You have to ask why migrants want to come to the UK, bypassing Germany, France and other European countries. Could it be because those countries have national ID cards? These let holders use government services, and are required to obtain work and access healthcare and other state benefits. ID cards would improve government efficiency, removing the need for multiple other forms of identification. Yet we think we know best, and so the debate continues ad infinitum. R Jones Northwood, Middlesex SIR – An ID card scheme would surely offer an opportunity for people-traffickers to enhance their income further by selling forged cards. Carole Doggett Milford, Hampshire SIR – The idea of having to prove yourself to the state day in, day out is objectionable. Why should I – a private citizen – have to verify who I am to a policeman, when the policeman should rightly show his warrant card to me? Letters to the Editor We accept letters by email and post. Please include name, address, work and home telephone numbers. ADDRESS: 111 Buckingham Palace Road, London, SW1W 0DT EMAIL: dtletters@ FOLLOW: Telegraph Letters @LettersDesk
Spectator
25 minutes ago
- Spectator
Britain needs reform
This week's spending review confirms that where there should be conviction, there is only confusion; where there should be vision, only a vacuum. The country is on the road to higher taxes, poorer services and a decaying public realm, with the bandits of the bond market lying in wait to extract their growing take from our declining share of global wealth. When every warning light is flashing red, the government is driving further and faster towards danger The Chancellor approached this spending review with her credibility already undermined. Promises not to raise taxes on working people translated into a tax on work itself which has driven up unemployment. A pledge to put growth first has been accompanied by changes to employment law that make the labour market more rigid and the cost of hiring workers commensurately greater. A party which excoriated the Conservatives for letting prices rise has pumped billions into public-sector wage hikes and seen inflation increase again. An apparent determination to take difficult decisions to control spending by removing pensioners' winter fuel payments has crumbled in the face of backbench pressure. The farcical retreat has only emboldened those in Labour who want to drive us deeper into debt. The NHS and the Ministry of Defence are the most hopeless spending addicts but they are not the only departments to have wrung more from the Treasury than the nation can afford – or the Chancellor indicated she wanted. Ed Miliband has shown that, whatever other criticisms may be directed at him, he is brilliant at getting high on the taxpayers' supply – with generous subsidies for domestic decarbonisation and billions for the most expensive energy the markets can provide. The Department for Education has secured millions more to get the state to pay for families' food. Angela Rayner has extra billions, not to build new houses but to buy existing homes for the state. The Department for Transport also has a line of credit to pay for schemes no private sector investor would go near. And any lingering expectations that welfare reform would yield significant savings seems fanciful given the Prime Minister's desire to end the two-child cap on benefit payments. It is not as though this programme can be justified on the basis of an economy that's roaring back. Tax changes this government has introduced have led to a flight of the wealthy and a consequent depression in revenue. Alongside rises in inflation and unemployment, the cost of government borrowing is escalating to a level which causes international markets to demand a heftier risk premium. At a time when every warning light is flashing red, the government is determined to drive further and faster towards danger. Perhaps the greatest sin of this spending review is one of omission. There is no indication that all this additional expenditure will be accompanied by meaningful public-sector reform. The civil service headcount is growing. In education, the greater autonomy and accountability which drove up school standards is being abandoned. Our shoddily inefficient criminal justice system remains a mess of unaccountable fiefdoms: lamentably inadequate chief constables hide their failures behind the alibi of 'operational independence', the Crown Prosecution Service is a creaking liability and courts are hidebound by a judiciary that resists effective management of their operations. The additional money for defence is going to a department whose procurement policies are hardly a model of prudence. And despite the best efforts of Wes Streeting, one cabinet minister who is at least intent on reform, the extra cash for the NHS risks being swallowed whole by staff unions rather than being used to create incentives for change. The failure to fundamentally reform the functioning of government is all too visible in every operation of the state. Britain desperately needs reform. But our government offers only the inadequate management of accelerating decline. Licences to kill While the state proves incapable of reform, our parliament is attempting to prove it is world-leading in terminating innocent lives. Legislation to make it easier to kill the ill and elderly (the private member's bill to encourage suicide) appears still to enjoy majority support. And next week Labour MPs seek to amend the Crime and Policing Bill to decriminalise abortion. The state should undoubtedly treat any decision to terminate a pregnancy with sensitivity. But this amendment is an invitation to abusive partners to coerce vulnerable women into late-stage abortions and removes one of the last protections unborn children still have. Do we really want this decade to be one in which the only thing we do more efficiently than ever is kill innocent souls?
The Sun
25 minutes ago
- The Sun
Keir Starmer doubles down on Israeli ministers' sanctions despite being slammed by US
SIR Keir Starmer yesterday doubled down on sanctioning Israeli ministers, despite being savagely rapped by the US. Donald Trump 's administration hit out at Britain after the PM broke with tradition and imposed a travel ban and asset freeze on two far-right members of Israel's government, Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich. 4 4 4 In a scathing attack on the move, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the sanctions 'do not advance American efforts to achieve a ceasefire, bring all hostages home and end the war'. Mr Rubio warned Britain 'not to forget who the real enemy is'. The US ambassador to the UK said he 'fully supported' Mr Rubio's slap down and warned the PM against 'impeding constructive dialogue'. Ben-Gvir, who is pushing to annex the West Bank and wants to permanently expel Palestinians from Gaza, said: 'The American administration is a moral compass in the face of the confusion of some Western countries that choose to appease terrorist organizations like Hamas. 'Israel is not afraid — we will continue to fight terrorism. 'History will judge the Chamberlains of our time.' At PMQs Sir Keir defended the sanctions as a bid to 'uphold human rights and defend the prospect of a two-state solution'. The PM said: "Acting alongside our allies, we have sanctioned individuals responsible for inciting appalling settler violence and expansion. "We will continue to support all efforts to secure a ceasefire, the release of all hostages despicably held by Hamas and the humanitarian aid that needs to surge in. Greta Thunberg's Gaza 'Freedom Flotilla' boarded & seized by Israeli forces 4
