Badenoch and Starmer clash over 'modest income' tax pledge
Labour promised in its election manifesto to protect "working people" from tax hikes - an assurance that dominated the run-up to last year's Budget, as ministers struggled to spell out who they meant.On Sunday, Alexander complicated the picture still further by suggesting in a Sky News interview that "people on modest incomes, working people" would be shielded from rises this time round.During PMQs, Badenoch called on Sir Keir to "clear up the confusion," adding that ministers "seem incapable of explaining who is in that category".In response, the prime minister said the government was "fixing the country" for "the sort of people that work hard but haven't necessarily got the savings to buy themselves out of problems"."That's who we're working for, and that's why we put the national living wage up, that's an extra £1,400," he added.
Tax pledges
The government is widely expected to raise taxes at this autumn's Budget, after poor economic figures and a series of U-turns on welfare cuts made it harder to meet its self-imposed spending rules.Ministers have repeatedly insisted they cannot write the Budget in advance, whilst at the same time promising not to raise the biggest revenue-raising taxes available to the Treasury ahead of the next general election. These include income tax rates; VAT, a sales tax; and corporation tax, which is paid by companies on their profits.Labour also promised not to raise National Insurance - prompting a row last autumn when it announced a rise in the contributions paid by employers. It means ministers could be in for a long summer, as they are repeatedly pressed why they cannot rule out rises on other areas.
'Working person' wrangle
Recent reports have suggested ministers are considering freezing income tax thresholds beyond the 2028 date fixed by the last government, allowing more people to be dragged into higher bands as their wages rise over time.Ministers are also facing pressure from some Labour backbenchers to consider some sort of additional tax targeting wealth.During PMQs Badenoch accused the government of also "considering taxing" pension contributions, although she did not explain what she meant by this.Labour ministers have previously come up with a wide range of definitions for who would qualify for tax protection as a "working person".Ahead of last autumn's Budget, the prime minister said the category included those who "go out and earn their living" and can't "write a cheque to get out of difficulties".He added that those with additional income from assets, such as shares or property, would not come under his definition.His spokesman later said those with a "small amount of savings" could qualify under the prime minister's definition, and those holding stocks and shares in a tax-free Individual Savings Accounts (ISA).
Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to keep up with the inner workings of Westminster and beyond.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Metro
10 minutes ago
- Metro
Lowering the vote to 16 won't save Labour from Reform
When the news broke that the government would be lowering the voting age to 16 before the next general election, my first thought was: Finally. My second: Starmer is panicking. Don't get me wrong. I'm fully in favour of votes at 16. You've heard all the arguments before; If they pay taxes, and can join the army, they deserve a democratic say in the decisions shaping their future. But let's not pretend that this 'seismic' reform is being undertaken purely as a matter of principle. Keir Starmer and his team in No 10 did not wake up this morning with a burning desire for youth enfranchisement – this is strategy. Panicked strategy. For Labour advisers, the logic does appear simple: Give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote, and they'll vote Labour. Wrong. Craig Munro breaks down Westminster chaos into easy to follow insight, walking you through what the latest policies mean to you. Sent every Wednesday. Sign up here. And if Labour still believes that, they've well and truly shot themselves in the foot. The party is, as you might expect, a year into a government defined by 'tough choices', shipping progressive votes to more left-wing parties. But the awkward, data-backed, TikTok-verified truth is that a significant portion of Gen Z is being pulled into Nigel Farage's sphere. Not because his policies have anything concrete to give them (few do), but because he has made himself visible, vocal, and – in their opinion – genuine. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video A previous JL Partners poll found that 23% of 16 and 17-year-olds were supporting Reform UK, placing Farage's party second in that age group, just slightly behind Labour. Among young men? Reform was level with Labour at 35%. This is no anomaly. It's a trend. Teenage boys are not sitting around watching Keir Starmer's painstakingly choreographed campaign videos. No. They are watching Farage down pints, mock 'the elites' (despite him being one himself), and posting punchy soundbites from the pub. He is where they are, mostly on TikTok, where he has over 1.3million followers. And where he is, whether he is goading climate protesters or psyched about free speech, he is speaking their language – short-form, crude, and utterly unbothered by traditional truth. It's infuriating. It's dangerous. But it's working. And the Labour Party has fallen hook, line, and sinker into the trap. In attempting to push through this reform in the hope of boosting their electoral map, they risk unconsciously inviting Farage onto new territory, even though he remains officially opposed to the move. On social media, Farage isn't waffling about the public deficit and pensions. He's making himself a meme. A cheeky, jesting uncle who's 'just saying what everyone's thinking'. It's performative politics with punchlines and it's gaining likes. Labour, meanwhile, is presumably expecting 16-year-olds to be so grateful for their new right to vote that they'll express it by voting for a party that has watered down its message on climate, attempted to cut benefits for the disabled, and has remained mostly silent on Gaza. Spoiler alert: They won't. Most youth are already tuned off Labour. You just have to look at the rise in Green support. That same JL Partners poll from last year had the Greens on 18% among 16 to 17-year-olds. And more than a third of 18 to 24-year-olds say they are willing to consider voting for a Jeremy Corbyn-led party, according to a recent YouGov poll. So here we are: Labour, trying to outbid Farage by enfranchising a group that, shock horror, might quite like him. A party seeking to secure its youth vote without having done the political legwork to earn it. It's not just naïve. It's reckless. The irony is that Labour is doing the right thing, morally. Lowering the voting age is long overdue. It's fair. It's a reflection of the responsibilities young people already carry in society. But in doing it for the wrong reasons, they risk losing the very group they're trying to enfranchise. And Farage? He's laughing all the way to the comments. The man has no real policies for youth. No affordable housing strategy. No ideas on tuition fees. No plan for youth mental health, education, or employment. What he offers instead is grievance and swagger, daily and in bite-sized pieces. It's fast-food populism. Do you think Labour have shot themselves in the foot? Yes - 16-year-olds won't vote for them No - they still have big youth support If Labour is to reverse that, it can't be through the process; it needs to be the process. It requires principle. It requires bravery. It requires an end to a party being scared of its own principles and for them to start speaking straight and boldly to young people – telling them what they can have, not what they can't. More Trending Climate justice, affordable housing, international solidarity, economic transformation – these aren't niche issues. They're youth issues. But if Labour continues to triangulate and mumble, it'll keep losing ground. Votes at 16 is not a bad policy. But it's not a silver bullet either. Not when you've got Nigel Farage playing the anti-politics game better than anyone and making young people think he's one of them. Labour can't afford to underestimate him. Again. Do you have a story you'd like to share? Get in touch by emailing Share your views in the comments below. MORE: Germany's 6ft 6in Chancellor towers over Keir Starmer – see how other leaders stack up MORE: If you've never watched Star Trek, start with Strange New Worlds MORE: Cain Dingle's grief has been the highlight of Emmerdale's John Sugden story
Channel 4
10 minutes ago
- Channel 4
UK and Germany sign ‘Friendship Treaty' on migration and defence
Another week and another European leader in London as Keir Starmer 's charm offensive continues to gather pace. The British Prime Minister and German Chancellor, Friedrich Merz , today signed a 'Friendship Treaty' at the Victoria and Albert Museum, the location chosen for its symbolic reference to a loving, and politically useful, royal marriage between the United Kingdom and Germany . It was all smiles from the German Chancellor as he put his name to a 23-page document that diplomats have spent months negotiating. 'This is a historic day for German-British relations. It's also a great honour for me personally to be here today in this museum, which bears two names that are closely linked to British and German history,' said Merz. After years of difficult relations since Britain left the EU, Starmer has been wooing European leaders and has promised to turn the page. According to sources in Berlin, Merz bonded with Keir Starmer in his first week as Chancellor back in May when the two leaders, along with French President, Emmanuel Macron, took the long train journey to Kyiv and back again. But beyond the warmer words, for Merz, like Macron, it is current threats like migration pressures and fears about Russia that are driving continental powers back towards collaboration with Brexit Britain. Last week Macron and Starmer agreed to trial a migrant exchange programme. Under the 'one in, one out' agreement, a number of migrants already in the UK – reportedly as low as 50 per week – will be sent back to France. In exchange, the UK will accept an equal number of migrants directly from France. It is hoped migrants will be put off trying to cross the Channel if they risk being sent back. Although there is some scepticism that the scheme will achieve that aim. Downing Street says today's agreement with Germany will likewise 'help smash smuggling gangs' which fuel the migrant problem. 'This is a historic day for German-British relations.' – Friedrich Merz According to the UK government, Germany has committed to a change in the law by the end of this year which would allow authorities there to prosecute smugglers using warehouses in Germany to store inflatables intended for the transport of migrants across the English Channel. That's a loophole that has exasperated authorities in other European countries, including the UK, trying to go after the gangs. In one example, quoted in court documents during a case against a major smuggling gang, crates containing motors, around one hundred lifejackets and other equipment were delivered to the wrong address in a city in western Germany. Local German police noted down serial numbers and then helpfully ensured that the packages were handed over to the smugglers. Just five days later, a boat with an outboard motor matching one of those serial numbers landed in Britain, with 29 migrants on board. The Home Office says the change in the law will give German authorities 'the tools they need to investigate and take action against warehouses and storage facilities used by migrant smugglers to conceal dangerous small boats intended for illegal crossings to the UK. 'This will bolster efforts to prosecute those involved in smuggling and support the dismantling of the criminal networks driving unacceptable and unlawful journeys through Europe.' The decision to work together on a problem like migration is a strategic choice and one that is threaded through the 'Friendship Treaty'. Even that name – Friendship Treaty – has been carefully chosen to evoke new relations. 'This is a partnership with a purpose,' said Prime Minister Starmer. 'I think it illustrates what our work on the international stage is all about, building the foundations of stability across our continent to make us safer, boost our economy and deliver change across for our people. It's about delivering results, and that's what we're working towards. 'In a dangerous world, we do this together', he added. 'In a dangerous world, we do this together.' – Keir Starmer When it comes to defence, the new treaty commits Britain and Germany to mutual assistance if one or the other is attacked, a protection both already enjoy as Nato members, so long as the US lives up to that commitment. But with Donald Trump in the White House, some aren't so sure. 'We have zero doubt that we stay together, we stick together, in the Nato framework,' Germany's Foreign Minister, Johann Wadephul, told Channel 4 News. 'But in Europe it's necessary, and it's an important step for us, that Britain shows again that they are back in Europe.' Merz and Trump discuss Ukraine, security and trade Merz confirmed as German Chancellor despite shock first round defeat 'We need to work with the US', says German ambassador
The Independent
10 minutes ago
- The Independent
Ex-minister says no ‘fierce opposition' to Afghan route amid data breach fallout
Conservative ex-ministers offered no 'fierce opposition' to plans to bring Afghan refugees to the UK via a secret route following a data breach, the former armed forces minister has said. James Heappey, who was armed forces minister at the time the data breach came to light, said claims he had backed a 'new entitlement' for people affected by the breach but not eligible for other schemes were 'untrue'. His comments on social media on Thursday appeared to contradict those of former immigration minister Robert Jenrick, who said he and former home secretary Suella Braverman had 'strongly opposed' plans for the Afghan Response Route in 'internal meetings'. But Mr Heappey, himself a former Army officer who served in Afghanistan, said the cross-government committee responsible for the policy 'tried to extend entitlements by the smallest number possible'. He said: 'This was led by legal advice & I don't recall fierce opposition. There was frustrated resignation that it was necessary.' Mr Heappey did, however, recall 'rancorous' meetings in which departments 'fought fiercely for their priorities and/or to avoid unresourced responsibility'. He also denied that a new 'secret route' was not under consideration at the time he resigned as armed forces minister in March 2024. The data breach, which saw a defence official release the details of nearly 19,000 people seeking to flee Kabul in 2022, became public on Tuesday after an unprecedented superinjunction banning reporting of the breach was lifted. Since then, Conservative former ministers have sought to distance themselves from the handling of the breach and the subsequent creation of a secret relocation scheme, the Afghanistan Response Route, in April 2024. Along with Mr Jenrick's claims of having opposed the route prior to his resignation in December 2023, Ms Braverman herself has said there is 'much more that needs to be said about the conduct of the MoD (Ministry of Defence), both ministers and officials'. Former veterans minister Johnny Mercer claimed he had 'receipts' regarding the previous government's actions in relation to Kabul, and has described the handling of the breach as 'farcical'. Sir Ben Wallace, who applied for the initial injunction as defence secretary, has said he makes 'no apology' for doing so, saying it was motivated by the need to protect people in Afghanistan whose safety was at risk. Mr Heappey backed up his former boss, saying the superinjunction was 'needed' to protect people from 'mortal danger'. He said: 'The intelligence assessment was clear: if the Taliban got their hands on the list, violent and even lethal reprisal was likely.' Mr Heappey added that, although a review by retired civil servant Paul Rimmer found there was now little threat to those on the list as a result of the breach, this did not mean the threat had never existed. He also sought to defend the individual responsible for the leak, saying they had been 'incredibly dedicated to those we served with in Afghanistan'. Grant Shapps, who was defence secretary by the time the superinjunction was granted, has not yet publicly commented on the revelations. The data breach saw a dataset of 18,714 people who applied for the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) scheme released in February 2022 by a defence official who emailed a file outside authorised government systems. Defence sources have said that details of MI6 spies, SAS and special forces personnel were included in the spreadsheet, after they had endorsed Afghans who had applied to be brought to the UK. The Ministry of Defence only became aware of the blunder when excerpts from the dataset were posted anonymously on a Facebook group in August 2023, and a super-injunction was granted at the High Court in an attempt to prevent the Taliban from finding out about the leak. The leak also led to the creation of the secret Afghanistan Response Route, which is understood to have cost about £400 million so far, with a projected final cost of about £850 million. A total of about 6,900 people are expected to be relocated by the end of the scheme. The official responsible for the email error was moved to a new role but not sacked. The superinjunction was in place for almost two years, covering Labour and Conservative governments. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch has apologised on behalf of the Conservatives for the leak, telling LBC: 'On behalf of the government and on behalf of the British people, yes, because somebody made a terrible mistake and names were put out there… and we are sorry for that.' Meanwhile, Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee has demanded to see intelligence assessments relating to the data breach 'immediately' as MPs and peers begin inquiries over the incident. The Commons Defence Committee has also indicated it will call former ministers to give evidence on the breach, and Mr Heappey said he would be 'happy to contribute' to the committee's inquiry.
