Peterborough Conservatives given choice over no confidence vote
He said: "We don't whip people per se, we reach consensus."The council is made up of 17 Labour councillors, 13 Peterborough First councillors, 11 Conservatives, eight Liberal Democrats, six independent councillors and five Green Party councillors.If the motion was voted through, a Peterborough First councillor would be put forward to become the new leader.
Jones has been leader of the council since May 2024, when Labour won the most seats to form a minority administration.He said he was "incredibly proud" of the work Peterborough Labour had done so far. Christian Hogg, leader of the Liberal Democrat group, said Labour controlled just a "small percentage of the council".He said the coalition with Peterborough First and the Greens included a broad range of opinions, adding: "We are a spectrum of political views and that makes for better decision-making."Heather Skibsted, leader of the Green Party group, said she was "reasonably confident" ahead of Wednesday's vote."We've got more numbers and therefore represent more of the city's residents."
Follow Peterborough news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
7 minutes ago
- The Independent
Is Keir Starmer just one crisis away from a Labour coup?
On the Whitehall grapevine, Wes Streeting is seen as a rare success story for the government: a good communicator who is starting to deliver the change Keir Starmer promised. The chatter in Streeting's health department predicts his next stop will be 10 Downing Street. However, the health secretary might face an uphill battle to win over the Labour grassroots in the 'one member, one vote' ballot that chooses the party's leader. Even some of his admirers suspect he might be too right-wing, or 'Blairite', for many of them. Whitehall officials are less flattering about other cabinet ministers. Rachel Reeves 's autumn Budget is described by some as her 'last shot'. In other words, if she can't break out of the doom loop of 'one-off' tax rises to meet her fiscal rules, followed by exactly the same medicine in her next Budget, Starmer might be looking for a new chancellor next year. The prime minister is not immune to speculation about his future. Even his allies admit he cannot afford a repeat of his bad first year on the domestic front. 'Another crisis like the welfare climbdown and it would surely be curtains,' one Labour MP told me. Angela Rayner told last month's meeting of Labour's national executive committee that 'announcements are not enough: people have to see real improvements in their lives, soon.' Significantly, the deputy prime minister added: 'The next 12 months will decide whether Labour wins a second term.' She wasn't talking behind Keir Starmer's back; he was in the room. Few ministers would disagree with her 'one more year' theory. Starmer's problem is that first impressions of a government, prime minister or party leader usually stick, and Labour and his party's dire ratings are getting worse. Although Rayner didn't say it, the logical consequence of her statement is that if Starmer hasn't turned things round by next summer, the question of whether he should lead the party into the next general election will become a live one. The spark might be poor results in next May's mid-term elections, when Labour could lose out to the SNP in the Scottish Parliament, to Reform UK in the Welsh Parliament, and to the Greens and Jeremy Corbyn's new socialist party in English local authorities. Indeed, there's already gossip in Labour land about Starmer's future, which is fully in line with Labour's traditions. The party doesn't kill its leaders like the Conservatives, but makes up for that by debating endlessly in private who would take over if their leader fell under a Number 12 bus in Whitehall. Labour has more in common with the TV series Succession than it would admit. Despite Streeting's Whitehall fan club, the current strong favourite to succeed Starmer is Rayner. Although she insists she doesn't want the top job, it would be very hard to stick to that if it were likely to land in her lap. Rayner is performing a delicate balancing act well. She has carved out a position slightly to the left of Starmer, which is where Labour's heart beats. At the same time, she is publicly loyal to the PM; rocking the boat could damage her succession prospects. In theory, jittery Labour backbenchers, fearing they will lose their seats, could mount a coup against Starmer. In practice, they would need cabinet-level support. How loyal would the cabinet be if the PM came under real pressure? One largely forgotten factor is that only eight of today's 22-strong cabinet nominated Starmer in the 2020 Labour leadership contest – in other words, he was their first choice. They were: Hilary Benn, Yvette Cooper, John Healey, David Lammy, Ed Miliband, Bridget Phillipson, Steve Reed and Jonathan Reynolds. That doesn't mean other ministers would dump Starmer in the event of a leadership crisis. When a leader is in real trouble, any politician is bound to consider self-interest. If Rayner still looked a shoo-in, it would suit those who don't want her to succeed Starmer to rally behind him rather than pull the rug. 'Wes [Streeting], Yvette [Cooper] and other big beasts would bolster Keir rather than let Angie [Rayner] take over,' one Labour insider told me. Despite that, it is no longer certain that Starmer will lead his party into the next election. Starmer will soon reflect on his planned fightback during a much-needed holiday, which, knowing his wretched luck when it comes to taking a break, will probably be interrupted by the need to talk to other world leaders about Ukraine and Gaza. The first test of whether Starmer can turn the domestic tide will come in what is becoming an increasingly important speech to the Labour conference in Liverpool next month. 'It's going to be a hard slog from now on,' one close ally admitted.
Daily Mail
8 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
How could Rachel Reeves change inheritance tax - and what would it mean for you?
The Autumn Budget might be two months away, but speculation over which taxes the Chancellor will increase has already begun. Rachel Reeves is constrained by her manifesto pledges to keep income tax, VAT and National Insurance at the same level, despite calls to 'substantially' increase taxes. She is reportedly eyeing further changes to inheritance tax (IHT), less than a year after she announced plans to charge the tax on inherited pensions from April 2027. One of her options is to impose a lifetime gifting allowance, which would hit those who try to avoid IHT by giving away money and assets to their family before they die. Why is IHT reform on the cards again, what could Reeves' plans entail - and what does it mean for you? What inheritance tax do people pay now? IHT has historically only affected the very wealthy. At the moment, just 4 per cent of estates pay it. That is set to rise because house prices are increasing, while the threshold over which people pay inheritance tax stays the same. IHT being levied on private pensions left to descendants from 2027 will drive a further increase. Since 2009, an individual has needed to be worth £325,000 if you are single, or £650,000 if married or in a civil partnership, for beneficiaries to incur any death duties. This allowance is known as the nil-rate band. If you are married, own a property and leave your main home to direct descendants (children or grandchildren) you each get a further £175,000 allowance, known as the residence nil rate band. Collectively, it means a couple that meet this criteria could pass on £1million tax-free. The £325,000 nil rate band has been unchanged for 16 years, which means that rising property prices have dragged more people into paying IHT. Had it risen in line with inflation, it would be £585,996, meaning fewer people would be affected. How gifting can reduce inheritance tax There are some ways to minimise the amount of IHT paid, by gifting money to beneficiaries while you are still alive. You can gift £3,000 a year, and unlimited small gifts of up to £250, free from tax. However, if you die less than seven years after making the gift then you will start to pay IHT. This is levied on a sliding scale, from 8 per cent if gifts were made 6-7 years before death, to 40 per cent, if made within a year. This rule is designed to stop people making large gifts to family just before they die, in a bid to avoid IHT. Like the nil rate band, the gifting allowance has not changed since its introduction in 1986. If it had risen in line with inflation, it would be quadruple its current level at £12,297. As more people gift cash or assets to beneficiaries, they are more likely to fall foul of the rules. Why is Reeves looking at the gifting rules? Financial advisers tell This Is Money there has been a significant behaviour shift among their clients. More individuals are gifting their money to children and grandchildren to minimise their inheritance tax burden ahead of the pension changes in 2027. However, figures show that most people are not paying tax on their gifts, even if the giver has died within seven years. This is because you can actually gift far more than the £3,000 gifting allowance, so long as it doesn't breach the £325,000 nil rate band. These gifts will form part of your estate - but if it is below that threshold, you still won't pay tax. For example, if you have very few assets and you gift £10,000, and remain within the nil rate band, your estate will not pay tax on it. It means that it's very difficult to know how many people are gifting money tax-free, and likely why Reeves is eyeing changes to the rules. How much does the Treasury make from tax on gifts? A Freedom of Information request by This Is Money shows the number of families that are taxed on gifting was relatively low in the three years to 2021-22, the latest figures available. The figures have remained stable, with around 1,000 families being stung by IHT on their gifts each year, but some advisers suspect this doesn't paint the full picture. 'There will be people who gift and die within 7 years and then it's clawed back from the nil rate band, which don't appear in the figures,' says Lisa Caplan, director of advice and guidance at Charles Stanley. Shaun Moore, tax and financial planning expert at Quilter, also suspects 'people are gifting within the allowances and not suffering tax on the gifts.' For example, a gift of £250,000 wouldn't appear in the gifting table, but the estate will pay the tax because they've lost that amount from the nil rate band. Caplan predicts that the number of people who fall into the 'gfiting trap' will be higher as more people take out their tax-free cash early and start the seven-year clock. But this may not go far enough for Reeves, who needs to plug a £40billion black hole. What could Rachel Reeves change? Reeves is reportedly looking at a lifetime gifting allowance to minimise the amount people can pass on to their beneficiaries without incurring tax. The Guardian reported that the Treasury is mulling a lifetime cap to limit the amount of money or value of assets an individual can give away. This would be an additional administrative burden and mean HM Revenue & Customs would have to hold long-term records of gifts over decades. Rachel Griffin, chartered financial planner at Quilter says a cap 'might encourage people to make large gifts earlier in life to use up their allowance, potentially moving significant assets out of their control before they are financially ready.' Gianpaolo Mantini, chartered financial planner at Saltus, thinks Reeves could introduce lifetime capital transfer charges, as is already the case with trusts. 'They might do something like the French system where you can give a certain amount within a 15 year period [but] I think it would be very difficult logistically.' Another option for Reeves is to extend the seven-year rule to 10 years, although this would fly in the face of the reduction to five years, as first explored by the now-defunct Office for Tax Simplification. This is likely to receive significant backlash and only encourage people to gift earlier before they can afford to do so, experts say. Instead, it is more likely that the Treasury, which the Guardian reports is reviewing taper relief rules, removes the taper entirely. Taper relief is widely misunderstood and is generally only available to small numbers of the very wealthiest. Individuals only get taper relief if the value of the gift takes you above the nil rate band of £325,000. So if you gave someone £100,000 and then you died within 7 years, all that has done is reduce the available nil rate band, and the taper relief would not apply. I suspect there is under-reporting of gifts - a solicitor might not know unless they go through bank records Gianpaolo Mantini, chartered financial planner at Saltus As such, taper relief tends only to benefit the very wealthy, according to advisers. This could be a more palatable way for Reeves to change IHT rules for the wealthy, without imposing a wealth tax. One of Reeves' other options is to hand over more powers to HMRC and the Probate Office to ensure people are properly reporting gifts. 'I suspect there's a bit of underreporting [of gifts],' says Mantini. 'The solicitor doing probate might not know of any gifts made within seven years unless they go through bank records to see large sums given out. 'Unless the family or beneficiary declares it to the executor might not have any realistic way of knowing. 'A lot of gifts are small in nature and the larger ones might not always be fully declared.' This would mean more investment in public services at a time when the public purse is stretched as is, and it would prove difficult to establish whether a large sum is a gift or payment. Finally, Reeves could change capital gains tax (CGT) rules - the tax people pay when they make a profit on selling assets such as a house or shares. Currently, when you inherit assets the CGT slate is wiped clean and the base cost of is reset at the value at the date of death. So if someone inherited their parents' house, then sold it straight away, capital gains tax would only be payable on any profit they made above the value of the property when they inherited it - likely nothing. Reeves could change this, so families may have to pay tax on the entire 'profit' made by the child. It could make some families pay the double hit of CGT - up to 24 per cent - and IHT at 40 per cent. What it means for you Any changes to the IHT rules are intended to bring more people into the tax net. A lifetime gifting cap would mark a significant departure from the way IHT has historically been imposed, and advisers say it would mark a huge change to the way families pass on wealth. 'Such a cap would bring more gifts into scope for IHT and could capture not just large transfers designed to reduce tax bills but also modest, routine support between family members,' says Griffin. Ingrid McCleaver, partner at DMH Stallard, says a lifetime cap could spell the end of the 'bank of mum and dad', with children who receive a house deposit potentially facing an IHT bill. 'Not only are parents that work hard and save having to pay income tax on their salaries and savings, they may after the next budget suffer an additional tax on death, on amounts they have not had the benefit of for possibly years,' she says. Despite possible changes to how IHT is imposed, experts advise not to make drastic changes. Daniel Hough, wealth manager at RBC Brewin Dolphin says: 'There is a fine line between passing down wealth as efficiently as possible and enjoying a comfortable retirement. 'There are important discussions you need to have about the sustainability of your retirement pot and that may require scaling back ambitions – or you may find that you have to live with the consequences of your pension running out in your 80s or 90s.'
The Sun
8 minutes ago
- The Sun
David Lammy facing hefty fine for ILLEGALLY fishing with JD Vance on UK trip – months after taxi fare debacle
DAVID Lammy broke the law when he went fishing with JD Vance last week - because he did not have a licence. The Foreign Secretary has turned himself in to the environment watchdog and is now liable for a fine. 2 He cast off with the US Vice President last week when hosting him at his Chevening grace-and-favour estate. But he did not possess a rod licence which is a requirement in England and Wales even on private land. People caught fishing without a valid rod rushing licence can be fined up to £2,500 by the Environment Agency. Mr Lammy has since purchased a licence and dobbed himself into the quango admitting the 'oversight'. The Foreign Secretary himself said he did not catch any fish, although Mr Vance said his kids successfully hooked some. All fish were returned to the waters of the Kent country home after he and the Vice President cast off with their families last Friday - the first time Mr Lammy had fished at Chevening. A Foreign Office spokesperson said: 'The Foreign Secretary has written to the Environment Agency over an administrative oversight that meant the appropriate licences had not been acquired for fishing on a private lake as part of a diplomatic engagement at Chevening House last week. "As soon as the Foreign Secretary was made aware of the administrative error, he successfully purchased the relevant rod fishing licences. 'He also wrote to the Environment Agency notifying them of the error, demonstrating how it would be rectified, and thanking them for their work protecting Britain's fisheries.' A Labour source added: 'There's nothing fishy to see here. The Foreign Secretary isn't much of a fisherman but he landed a big diplomatic catch getting the Vice President to stay for the weekend at Chevening. 'As soon as he learned of the administrative error he got the relevant licences and notified the Environment Agency to avoid getting caught up.' Mr Lammy has successfully struck up a friendship with the US Vice President, who is currently on a family holiday in the Cotswolds. It is not his first diplomatic blunder in the role, after entering a row with a taxi driver over payment earlier this year. The taxi driver alleged the Foreign Secretary said 'f***ing French', although Mr Lammy has disputed his account. 2
