Tax rises 'increasingly likely' after DWP savings 'dwindle to nothing'
The benefits cut U-turn has left Rachel Reeves with a £4.8billion hole to fill
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves
Labour faces renewed speculation over its tax plans after concessions to the party's welfare rebels left a £4.8 billion hole in Rachel Reeves's spending plans. The concessions, including the last-minute shelving of plans to restrict eligibility for personal independence payments (Pip), were enough to head off the Government's first Commons defeat on Tuesday evening.
But they also removed a key plank of Sir Keir Starmer's welfare reform agenda, delaying changes to Pip until after a review of the benefit not due to conclude until autumn 2026. With no clarity on when the changes will be enacted or what they might entail, the Chancellor now faces a fiscal headache as a forecast £4.8 billion in welfare savings have been whittled away to nothing.
Economists at the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) and Resolution Foundation think tanks warned that Tuesday's concessions meant Ms Reeves could now expect no 'net savings' by 2029/30 – a key year for meeting her fiscal targets. IFS deputy director Helen Miller said the move had effectively halved the Chancellor's 'margin of error' against her main fiscal rule, once again raising the possibility of tax rises in the autumn.
On top of that, a stuttering economy and global instability could mean she has even less room for manoeuvre than expected. Ms Miller said: 'Since departmental spending plans are now effectively locked in, and the Government has already had to row back on planned cuts to pensioner benefits and working-age benefits, tax rises would look increasingly likely.'
The Resolution Foundation's Ruth Curtice agreed that there would be no savings in 2029/30, but suggested changes to universal credit – almost the only part of the Government's proposals still standing – could save money in the longer term. On Wednesday morning, the Conservatives accused Labour of making billions in unfunded spending commitments, including both the U-turns on welfare and the partial reinstatement of winter fuel payments.
Article continues below
In a letter to Ms Reeves, shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride demanded to know where the money was coming from, asking: 'Will you raise tax or increase borrowing?'
Ministers have repeatedly insisted that Labour will not raise taxes on 'working people', specifically income tax, national insurance or VAT. But Ms Reeves also remains committed to her 'iron clad' fiscal rules, which require day-to-day spending to be covered by revenues – not borrowing – in 2029/30.
Meanwhile, Sir Keir himself will face a grilling from MPs on Wednesday as he attempts to repair relations with his backbenchers.
Article continues below
The weekly session of Prime Minister's Questions comes just a day after 49 of his own MPs voted against his welfare reforms – the biggest rebellion of his premiership so far – while several backbenchers described the Government's handling of the issue as 'chaotic' and 'a shambles'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Guardian
24 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Children are receiving ‘life lessons' from influencers and AI
Sir Martyn Oliver will argue that classroom learning with human interaction 'has never been more important' as children are spending their lives online. In a major speech at the Festival of Education, the Ofsted chief will say schools are places of 'refuge', connection, friendship and humanity for children. Sir Martyn will tell the event at Wellington College, Berkshire: 'Right now, many children live much of their lives online. 'Socially, they are never 'off' and always in touch with their friends. 'And they increasingly receive life lessons from influencers or AI-generated summaries. 'I would argue that the place of learning, real learning, classroom learning – with human interaction – has never been more important.' The Ofsted boss will add: 'In a way there's something cloistered about living one's life in a curated online environment. 'You may be able to find 'the best that has been thought or said' if you go looking for it. 'But who's guiding you through it? Where's the human connection? And of course, where's the protection?' His comments come amid calls from the Conservatives for the Government to bring in a statutory ban on smartphones in schools. Schools in England were given non-statutory Government guidance in February last year intended to stop the use of phones during the school day. Sir Martyn will say: 'Schools have never just been places of learning. 'They were, and are places of safety, even refuge. Places of community and connection. Places of friendship and humanity. 'They are citadels of childhood: communities within communities looking after their own and helping children develop into well-rounded adults – capable of looking after others in turn.' On Thursday, Sir Martyn will hit back at cynics who 'decry the norms of education' and who say Ofsted enforces an 'out-of-date, joyless system'. In his speech, he will say: 'For Ofsted, teaching a full, rich range of subjects isn't just a nice to have, it's fundamental to a great education. 'Music and art and sport aren't add-ons to the core curriculum, they are some of the most important subjects to study, in terms of developing a child's awareness of the world around them. 'And in a more macro sense, feeding into the cultural evolution of our country and pushing civilisation on.'
South Wales Guardian
24 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
House of Lords votes to block expulsion of hereditary peers
Peers supported by 280 votes to 243, majority 37, an amendment to the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill that would instead see a gradual reduction of bloodline peers. The amendment, put forward by shadow culture minister Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, would abolish the aristocratic by-elections, meaning the number of hereditary peers would decrease as individuals die or retire. There are currently 92 seats reserved for members of the Lords who are there by right of birth, but there are only 86 currently sitting. This is because by-elections were suspended after Labour won the election last year and six hereditary peers have left the House since then by death, retirement or moving on. Lord Parkinson argued that current sitting hereditary peers have 'served here with distinction and, in many cases, with more conspicuous industry than those who have been appointed'. He told peers: 'I hope, through this modest amendment, we can applaud their diligence and their public service and seek to harness it for the benefit of the nation for a while longer.' There have been numerous attempts to end the hereditary by-elections since their inception 26 years ago, including from Labour peer Lord Grocott. Lord Parkinson said: 'The formulation he (Lord Grocott) has proposed in every parliamentary session since 2016, apart from this one, is exactly the same as the one we advance today. 'Just as with peers who proposed private bills under the last Labour government, he has found it difficult to make progress with his bills under Conservative governments.' However, he said: 'On this, we give in… We yield to the mandate that they've won at the ballot box and take it at their word that further reform will follow.' The Tory frontbencher concluded that, in return, he asks for 'clemency and generosity' to those hereditary peers currently sitting in the Lords to allow them to remain for the rest of their life if they wish. Meanwhile, Lord Groccot said: 'I'm finding it difficult to compute exactly what's going on today because Friday after Friday, bill after bill, to a three-quarters empty House, I have been faced with substantial opposition, not just from individual members – not exclusively from the Tory Party, but overwhelmingly – but also from the Government, and the bill's got no further. 'And here we are now with a pretty full House all agreed that these by-elections are farcical.' He said his motive in bringing forward his bills were to 'stop this absurdity' and lamented that 'time and time again' his bills were rejected and filibustered. Lord Grocott said he had thought that no-one in the upper chamber could think a by-election to get into the House should be exclusively for men, or that it is feasible to have 'an electorate of three when you've got seven candidates'. The Labour peer added: 'I'm flattered, I suppose, to find that suddenly everyone seems to be agreed on this. We could have saved ourselves so much time when I brought this in first in 2016.' However, he said he prefers plans to expel the hereditary peers over ending the by-elections because it's 'better' and 'does the job more effectively', allowing the conversation to move on to further reform. Lord Grocott concluded: 'Thank heavens that we are removing the hereditary principle as a mechanism for membership of this House. It's long, long, long overdue. 'It could have been dealt with much earlier, but let's not cry over spilt milk, let's just get on with this and get on with it quickly.' Leader of the House of Lords Baroness Smith of Basildon said she is sure the Tories 'regret' not taking up her offer to ensure Lord Grocott's bill passed through the House. She said: 'We could have done that and that opportunity was lost. It's a shame it was lost, but that's where we are now. We now are debating a manifesto commitment from the Labour Party… 'The principle of this was established 25 years ago that the hereditary principle would not be a route into this House. 'That does not decry any individual member who's arrived by that route, but the time has come to an end.' It is expected that the House of Commons will reject this amendment to the Bill. Before the vote, former senior diplomat Lord Kerr of Kinlochard warned that ping-pong between the two Houses would be 'poison' and 'disastrous' for the image of the Lords. Later, peers rejected a move by the Liberal Democrats that would have forced the Government to bring forward proposals for an elected House of Lords. The bid to secure 'a democratic mandate' for the upper chamber was defeated by 263 votes to 84, majority 179.
Leader Live
28 minutes ago
- Leader Live
House of Lords votes to block expulsion of hereditary peers
Peers supported by 280 votes to 243, majority 37, an amendment to the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill that would instead see a gradual reduction of bloodline peers. The amendment, put forward by shadow culture minister Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, would abolish the aristocratic by-elections, meaning the number of hereditary peers would decrease as individuals die or retire. There are currently 92 seats reserved for members of the Lords who are there by right of birth, but there are only 86 currently sitting. This is because by-elections were suspended after Labour won the election last year and six hereditary peers have left the House since then by death, retirement or moving on. Lord Parkinson argued that current sitting hereditary peers have 'served here with distinction and, in many cases, with more conspicuous industry than those who have been appointed'. He told peers: 'I hope, through this modest amendment, we can applaud their diligence and their public service and seek to harness it for the benefit of the nation for a while longer.' There have been numerous attempts to end the hereditary by-elections since their inception 26 years ago, including from Labour peer Lord Grocott. Lord Parkinson said: 'The formulation he (Lord Grocott) has proposed in every parliamentary session since 2016, apart from this one, is exactly the same as the one we advance today. 'Just as with peers who proposed private bills under the last Labour government, he has found it difficult to make progress with his bills under Conservative governments.' However, he said: 'On this, we give in… We yield to the mandate that they've won at the ballot box and take it at their word that further reform will follow.' The Tory frontbencher concluded that, in return, he asks for 'clemency and generosity' to those hereditary peers currently sitting in the Lords to allow them to remain for the rest of their life if they wish. Meanwhile, Lord Groccot said: 'I'm finding it difficult to compute exactly what's going on today because Friday after Friday, bill after bill, to a three-quarters empty House, I have been faced with substantial opposition, not just from individual members – not exclusively from the Tory Party, but overwhelmingly – but also from the Government, and the bill's got no further. 'And here we are now with a pretty full House all agreed that these by-elections are farcical.' He said his motive in bringing forward his bills were to 'stop this absurdity' and lamented that 'time and time again' his bills were rejected and filibustered. Lord Grocott said he had thought that no-one in the upper chamber could think a by-election to get into the House should be exclusively for men, or that it is feasible to have 'an electorate of three when you've got seven candidates'. The Labour peer added: 'I'm flattered, I suppose, to find that suddenly everyone seems to be agreed on this. We could have saved ourselves so much time when I brought this in first in 2016.' However, he said he prefers plans to expel the hereditary peers over ending the by-elections because it's 'better' and 'does the job more effectively', allowing the conversation to move on to further reform. Lord Grocott concluded: 'Thank heavens that we are removing the hereditary principle as a mechanism for membership of this House. It's long, long, long overdue. 'It could have been dealt with much earlier, but let's not cry over spilt milk, let's just get on with this and get on with it quickly.' Leader of the House of Lords Baroness Smith of Basildon said she is sure the Tories 'regret' not taking up her offer to ensure Lord Grocott's bill passed through the House. She said: 'We could have done that and that opportunity was lost. It's a shame it was lost, but that's where we are now. We now are debating a manifesto commitment from the Labour Party… 'The principle of this was established 25 years ago that the hereditary principle would not be a route into this House. 'That does not decry any individual member who's arrived by that route, but the time has come to an end.' It is expected that the House of Commons will reject this amendment to the Bill. Before the vote, former senior diplomat Lord Kerr of Kinlochard warned that ping-pong between the two Houses would be 'poison' and 'disastrous' for the image of the Lords. Later, peers rejected a move by the Liberal Democrats that would have forced the Government to bring forward proposals for an elected House of Lords. The bid to secure 'a democratic mandate' for the upper chamber was defeated by 263 votes to 84, majority 179.
