Keir Starmer fails to rule out bringing in fresh tax on wages
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch asked the Prime Minister: 'We know the Chancellor is launching a review into pension contributions. It's as clear as day why this is – it is because the Government is considering taxing them.
READ MORE: Fresh headache for Rachel Reeves as inflation jumps to 18-month high
'Does the Prime Minister agree with me that a tax on pension contributions is a tax on working people?'
Starmer replied: 'We made absolutely clear manifesto commitments which she asked me about last week and we're keeping to. I'm not going to write the budget months out.'
(Image: Ian West/PA Wire)
It comes after the SNP raised questions about whether the scope and level of VAT could be changed, as Rachel Reeves (above) seeks to plug holes in her budget to meet her self-imposed fiscal rules.
The Chancellor has pledged to have taxes cover day-to-day public spending and to get debt falling as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP).
READ MORE: Richard Murphy in explosive spat with BBC presenter over 'pro-Union bias'
Debt is rising as a percentage of GDP and official forecasts project it will top 270% by 2070 – and top economists have warned that the 'fiscal headroom' left by Reeves's plans is too narrow to meet future shocks.
She has also found herself with less room for manoeuvre after controversial cuts to the Winter Fuel Payment and disability benefits were scrapped.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
5 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Train passengers face ‘outrageous' fare hike
A potential 5.5 per cent rise in England's train fares next year has been described by public transport groups as 'outrageous'. July's Retail Prices Index (RPI) measure of inflation – which is often used to determine increases in the cost of train travel – will be announced on Wednesday. The Government has not confirmed how it will determine the cap in regulated fare rises for 2026, but this year's 4.6 per cent hike was one percentage point above RPI in July 2024. Banking group Investec has forecast this year's July RPI figure will be 4.5 per cent, which means fares could jump by 5.5 per cent. Bruce Williamson, spokesman for pressure group Railfuture, said 'it would be outrageous' if fares rose by that much. He added: 'What would be the justification for jacking up fares above inflation? There isn't any. 'It's ripping off the customer, driving people off the trains and onto our congested road network, which is in no-one's interest.' Mr Williamson said he would support the Government marking its nationalisation of train operators by freezing fares. He continued: 'One would hope that there would be some efficiency savings and economies of scale that you get from having a more integrated railway. 'But of course, I strongly suspect that if there are any savings to be had, they'd be swallowed up by the Treasury and not passed back to the passengers, which I think is wrong.' Ben Plowden, chief executive of lobby group Campaign for Better Transport, said: 'Rising fares are not just burdening passengers, they are putting people off rail travel. 'Our survey found that 71 per cent of people would be more likely to take the train if fares were cheaper. 'Public support for nationalisation plummets if fares continue to rise, so as the Government progresses plans for Great British Railways (GBR), it must take the opportunity to reform fares and make rail travel more affordable.' GBR is an upcoming public sector body that will oversee Britain's rail infrastructure and train operation. About 45 per cent of fares on Britain's railways are regulated by the Westminster, Scottish and Welsh Governments. They include season tickets on most commuter journeys, some off-peak return tickets on long-distance routes, and flexible tickets for travel around major cities. The Department for Transport (DfT) said there will be an update on changes to regulated fares later this year. Operators set rises in unregulated fares, although these are likely to be very close to regulated ticket increases because their decisions are heavily influenced by governments. A DfT spokesperson said: 'The Transport Secretary has made clear her number one priority is getting the railways back to a place where people can rely on them. 'The Government is putting passengers at the heart of its plans for public ownership and Great British Railways, delivering the services they deserve and driving growth. 'No decisions have been made on next year's rail fares but our aim is that prices balance affordability for both passengers and taxpayers.'
The Guardian
35 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Queensland police go to court in bid to stop Story Bridge pro-Palestine protest march
The Queensland police service will take protest organisers to court in an effort to halt a planned pro-Palestine march over Brisbane's Story Bridge this weekend. Justice for Palestine Magan-djin (Brisbane) have advertised plans to march over the bridge at 1pm on Sunday – replicating similar protests that occurred earlier this month in Sydney and Melbourne. Spokesperson for Justice for Palestine Magan-djin Remah Naji said the group is expecting at least 7000 people to attend the rally. The Queensland police oppose the march on public safety grounds. 'Under provisions of the peaceful assembly act, police will lodge documentation with Brisbane magistrates court for a decision to be made with respect to the notice of intention to hold a public assembly,' a spokesperson for the Queensland Police Service said. The matter is yet to be given a date of listing. A cycling group was denied the right to march or ride over the bridge earlier this year at a hearing at the magistrates court on public safety grounds. Naji said the march organisers had already briefed lawyers and were ready for a legal fight. 'We're very much willing to defend our fundamental right to peaceful assembly. If they want to go down this path, we're ready,' she said. Police in New South Wales sought to deny legal protection to a planned protest over the Sydney Harbour Bridge earlier this month – but that bid was overturned by the NSW supreme court at the 11th hour. Police say 90,000 people marched across that iconic structure, organisers put the figure at closer to 300,000 – regardless, the scale of the turnout ranks the protest as historic and the day went ahead without major incidents. In Melbourne on the same day, in contrast, pro-Palestine protesters were met by a wall of police in riot gear behind barricades and backed by a row of mounted officers and riot squad vans when they sought to cross the King Street Bridge. Justice for Palestine Magan-djin conducted mediation with Queensland police on Monday morning. QPS presented two options to the protest group for locations other than the bridge. A spokesperson for the QPS confirmed that mediation had taken place on Monday morning 'however an agreement could not be met'. Naji didn't rule out violating a court injunction if the magistrates court ruled against them, saying it would be a decision for the group collectively. She said the bridge is a central part of the protest because the urgency of the situation in Gaza 'This ongoing livestreamed genocide demands visibility. It is not enough for us to do the usual routes,' Naji said. She said the aim of the march was 'to apply the maximum pressure on our government'. Justice for Palestine Magan-djin has been holding regular protests in Brisbane for the last 22 months since the escalation of the conflict in Gaza after Israel responded to Hamas' attack on 7 October 2023 with a full-scale invasion, bombardment and blockade of aid in the Gaza Strip. More than 60,000 people have been killed in Gaza - mostly women, children and elderly people – since the war began, according to Palestinian health officials. -With additional reporting by Joe Hinchliffe
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Starmer's coalition of the willing has been saved from itself
It is commonplace to accuse politicians of being out of touch. There is often some truth in the charge, and our elected representatives take it on the chin. One of the least likely politicians to face this charge has always been John Healey: the defence secretary has been one of the most sensible and pragmatic ministers in Sir Keir Starmer's cabinet – not a high bar, admittedly. And yet there are signs that he has succumbed to the Ministry of Defence's corrosive habit of dealing with the world as it wants it to be, not as it is. We all watched the news from Friday's summit between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in Anchorage. However you try to frame the encounter, it was at best a huge disappointment for the US president. His Russian counterpart conceded nothing and his armed forces continue to pound Ukraine's cities. Meanwhile, his pre-conditions for any kind of negotiations remain the maximal aims with which he began the war: Ukraine must cede territory to Russia, rule out membership of Nato indefinitely and, in practice, allow the Kremlin a veto over its foreign policy. And yet, John Healey can't be accused of being a pessimist. 'In the circumstances of a ceasefire we're ready to put UK boots on the ground in Ukraine,' he told the BBC on Friday, shortly before the talks began. 'They are ready to go, they're ready to act from day one. The military plans are complete.' This is, of course, the 'coalition of the willing' which Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron have worked so hard to assemble. But there is one problem: it may indeed be 'ready to go' – although this is doubtful – but there is no ceasefire nor any prospect of a ceasefire, and Russia has violated previous pauses in the fighting with impunity. Secretary of state Marco Rubio was downbeat in the wake of the summit. 'There remain some big areas of disagreement,' he admitted to ABC's This Week. 'We're not at the precipice of an agreement, we're not at the edge of one.' President Trump, for whom consistency is something that applies to other people, seems to have decided a ceasefire is no longer important, despite having previously stressed what a priority it was. He casually edited reality on his Truth Social platform in his characteristic and odd way: It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a peace agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere ceasefire agreement, which often times do not hold up. Where does this leave the coalition of the willing? Starmer and Macron are now all dressed up with nowhere to go. They have made an enormous play of their genuinely tireless efforts in constructing the coalition, but its only purpose is to monitor, police or help implement a ceasefire in Ukraine. It is now plain to any rational observer that there will be no ceasefire in the foreseeable future, because it is not an approach which suits Putin and he now knows that Trump has little intention of putting pressure on him to bring it about. That may prove good fortune in a heavy disguise for Starmer because there is another consideration. Our armed forces are in no position to deploy significant numbers of troops in a safe and sustainable way to Ukraine. The size of the coalition's anticipated deployment is unknown but has been a moving target: in February, President Zelenskyy talked about needing a force of between 100,000 and 150,000. At the time, the Ministry of Defence carelessly allowed the idea to circulate that the UK might contribute 20,000 troops. In March, Starmer talked about 30,000 troops. The following month, the chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, consulted with his military colleagues in the coalition of the willing about generating a force of 64,000, and was told that not only was that utterly unrealistic, but that less than half that number, even 25,000, would be extremely challenging. Once again, UK ministers are trumpeting an idea that by definition cannot come to fruition. Without a ceasefire, putting boots on the ground in Ukraine is impossible; even if there were a ceasefire, the UK does not have the resources, especially in terms of artillery and logistics, to assemble anything more than a battlegroup of maybe 1,000 soldiers. Even our current commitments are stretching us. For context, Russia is estimated to have 600,000 soldiers in and around Ukraine. John Healey seems to have retreated into a comforting game of 'what if?', supposing that every eventuality he wants has come to pass and is then telling the media what the UK would do. Increasingly, though, he is talking not about potential outcomes but doors which have already closed. What if Russia agreed to a ceasefire, what if Putin moderated his demands, what if Russia and Ukraine could find an acceptable long-term settlement? As Jake says in the closing pages of Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises, 'Isn't it pretty to think so?'
