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.
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.
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.
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.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Zia Yusuf returns to Reform UK just 48 hours after quitting as chairman
Zia Yusuf is returning to Reform UK just 48 hours after quitting as party chairman, claiming his resignation was a 'mistake'. The 38-year-old businessman said his decision to stand down had been the result of 'exhaustion' and working for 11 months 'without a day off'. Party leader Nigel Farage, speaking to the Sunday Times newspaper alongside Mr Yusuf, said the former chairman will now effectively be doing 'four jobs', though his title has not yet been decided. He will lead Reform's plans to cut public spending – the so-called 'UK Doge', based on the US Department of Government Efficiency which was led by tech billionaire Elon Musk. The ex-chairman will also take part in policymaking, fundraising and media appearances. Mr Yusuf said he was quitting Reform following the latest in a series of internal rows, in which he described a question to the Prime Minister concerning a ban on burkas from his party's newest MP as 'dumb'. Announcing his resignation on Thursday afternoon, he said: 'I no longer believe working to get a Reform government elected is a good use of my time, and hereby resign the office.' Mr Yusuf said he had been left feeling undervalued by some in the party and drained after being subjected to relentless racist abuse on X, and made the comments in 'error'. 'I spoke to Nigel and said I don't mind saying I made an error. It was a function of exhaustion,' he said. Asked about the row over talk of banning the burka, Mr Yusuf said he 'certainly did not resign because I have any strong views about the burqa itself' but felt blindsided by Sarah Pochin's question to Sir Keir Starmer. He said that 'if there were a vote and I was in parliament, I would probably vote to ban it actually' but that 'philosophically I am always a bit uneasy about banning things which, for example, would be unconstitutional in the United States, which such a ban no doubt would be'. Reform will hope the show of unity between Mr Farage and the former chairman is enough to quell concerns about internal personality clashes, amid recent scrutiny of the leader's fallings out with former allies. It follows the suspension of MP Rupert Lowe from the party following complaints about his conduct, which he denied, and suggested the leader had a tendency to row with colleagues he felt threatened by. Labour branded Mr Yusuf's return a 'humiliating hokey-cokey' and said working people could not afford 'the risk of economic chaos with Reform UK'. Party chairwoman Ellie Reeves said: 'Reform's revolving door shows that the party is all about one person – Nigel Farage. 'Zia Yusuf's humiliating hokey-cokey is laughable but there is nothing funny about Farage's £80 billion in unfunded commitments. 'His reckless plan is Liz Truss's disastrous mini-budget on steroids and would spark economic chaos that increases bills and mortgages. 'Working people simply can't afford the risk of economic chaos with Reform UK.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
China confirms upcoming trade talks with the US
The Chinese government on Saturday confirmed Monday's meeting in the United Kingdom of its senior representatives with their US counterparts. Vice Premier He Lifeng will visit the UK from June 8 to 13 at the invitation of the British government, a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry announced. During his stay, he will hold the first meeting regarding the economic and trade mechanism between China and the United States, the ministry said. It did not provide any additional details about the Chinese delegation. Trump announces talks US President Donald Trump announced on his online platform Truth Social on Friday that senior representatives from the US and China would meet in London for further trade talks. The US delegation will be led by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, Trump said. According to Trump, the talks will focus on the details of a trade agreement concluded in May between the two largest economies. In the tariff dispute, Trump had temporarily raised punitive tariffs on imports from China to the US to as much as 145%, prompting Beijing to respond with retaliatory tariffs. Disputes beyond tariffs Other contentious issues between the two countries include US restrictions on the sale of key technology products, such as chip design software, to China. Washington, in turn, is not happy with China's export controls on rare earths. The Commerce Ministry in Beijing once again justified the controls, stating that raw materials are goods for both civilian and military purposes, according to an evening statement. In line with the law, China has issued a certain number of export licences and is ready to strengthen exchanges with the relevant countries regarding rare earths.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Without a Badenoch/Farage pact, the Left will rule Scotland for decades to come
Did Zia Yusuf's dramatic (and as it turns out, temporary) resignation on the day of the Hamilton by-election cost Reform the seat? Of course not. The idea that chaos in Reform puts off its voters is based on a misunderstanding of what motivates those voters. Reform exists because the older parties failed. You might argue that not all of that failure was their fault. Some of the issues that enrage the electorate – poor public services, high taxes, rising prices, dwindling social capital – are the products of a lockdown that 93 per cent of the country demanded. Others are products of our demographic decline: nations with elderly populations are bound to be less dynamic. Equally, though, there have been unforced errors and broken promises, above all on immigration. Reform is a howl of protest against those betrayals. It is an essentially negative vote, and I say that in no slighting spirit. Every party attracts negative votes. I used to get lots of them as a Conservative MEP when people wanted to punish Labour governments. Negative votes can take you, Trump-like, to the very top. I simply make the point that Reform's supporters show scant interest in their party's policies, let alone its personnel. Reform came from nowhere in the Hamilton by-election despite not having a leader in Scotland. It is hard to imagine the famously resilient electors of Lanarkshire determining their vote on the basis of an unelected party official resigning in London. If we want to play 'what if', the thing that might have given Reform the extra 1,471 votes it needed was the backing of the local Conservatives. Not every Tory would vote for Reform in the absence of a Conservative candidate, of course. Still, the electoral system used for Holyrood argues strongly for a deal at next year's Scottish Parliament election. Just as the SNP and the Scottish Greens used to maximise their representation by focusing respectively on the constituencies and the top-up list, so Reform and the Tories should do the same in 11 months' time. In Scotland, as in England and Wales, the parties have similar policies but different electorates. The Scottish Conservatives are strong in the Borders and the north-east, Reform in the more populous Central Belt. An understanding between them would leave both with more MSPs next May. Such a deal in Wales might have put Reform into office had the principality not just ditched that voting system and adopted EU-style proportional representation, but that's another story. How many Tory and Reform voters would co-operate? Although the two manifestos are compatible – lower taxes, strong defence, less wokery, secure borders, growth over greenery – tonal and aesthetic differences remain. Some Reform supporters will never vote Conservative, either because they can't forgive the tax rises and immigration failures of the last administration or, conversely, because they are former Labour voters who would never back the party of Margaret Thatcher. Some Conservatives – a smaller number – recoil from a party they see as a Trumpian personality cult. One way to express the difference is this. The Tories, after three and a half centuries, have a sense of the trade-offs and complexities involved in holding office. Reform is in the happy position of being able to claim that it is simply a question of willpower. Consider the issue of immigration. On Friday, Kemi Badenoch embarked on a major overhaul of the Blairite juridical state. She asked her shadow law officers to look at all treaties and domestic laws that hinder elected ministers from fulfilling their promises, and set five tests by which to measure success. Will we be able to deport people who should not be here, protect our veterans from 'lawfare', prioritise British citizens in housing and welfare, keep malefactors in prison, and get things built? Meeting all five tests is hard, but not impossible. Badenoch wants to take her time and get it right. But, to some, it will come across as equivocation. 'Why can't you just say now that you would leave the European Convention on Human Rights?', they ask. I have no doubt that that is where she will end up. But we need policies, not slogans. Leaving the ECHR is not a skeleton key that unlocks every door. Our problems go far deeper. Outside the ECHR, we would be constrained by numerous other international accords: the UN Refugee Convention; the Paris Agreement on climate change (under which our Australia Free Trade Agreement is being challenged in court); the Aarhus Convention, which caps costs for activist groups bringing eco-challenges. Even the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child has been used both to challenge deportation orders and to block welfare reforms. All these things need to be looked at, calmly and thoroughly. Nor is it just foreign treaties. The last Labour government passed a series of domestic statutes that constrained its successors: the Human Rights Act, the Climate Change Act, the Equality Act and a dozen more. We need to tackle these, too. What, if anything, should replace the ECHR? Do we update our own 1689 Bill of Rights? Do we offer a CANZUK version? Do we rely on pure majoritarianism? Even if all the obnoxious laws were swept away, what would we do about Left-wing activists who become judges rather than go to the bother of getting themselves elected to anything, and who legislate from the bench? Can we return to the pre-Blair arrangements where the lord chancellor is in charge? My point is that all this requires patience, detail and nuance. But a lot of voters are understandably impatient, and regard nuance as the sign of a havering milksop – a nuancy-boy, so to speak. They see not a Conservative Party determined to repair the broken state machine so that it can deliver on its manifesto, but a bunch of vacillating wets shying away from simple solutions. This worries me. Suppose that Nigel Farage were to form the next government and leave the ECHR, only to find that illegal immigrants continued to arrive, that judges continued to apply the rules asymmetrically, and that every one of his statutes ended up being snarled up in the courts? What would be the impact on our democracy? I pick the example of immigration because it is the most salient, but much the same applies across government. Reducing spending involves trade-offs, and anyone who pretends that there are huge savings to be made by scrapping DEI programmes or cutting waste has not looked at the figures. The same is true of reducing welfare claims, scrapping quangos, reforming the NHS and raising school standards. The diagnosis may be easy, but the treatment will be long and difficult, and will require more than willpower. In his response to Yusuf's resignation, Farage reminded us why he is a successful politician. He blamed Islamophobic trolls for making his party chairman's life impossible, thereby both anticipating the 'no one can work with Nigel' charge and reinforcing his non-racist credentials. The same calculation led him to condemn Tommy Robinson, and played a part in his falling-out with Rupert Lowe. Farage knows that there are hundreds of thousands of disenfranchised Muslims, many of whom, like his white supporters, are former Labour voters in decaying northern towns. Unnoticed by the national media, Farage has been reaching out to these communities. Imagine Farage's political nous and personal energy allied to the detailed policy work that the Tories are undertaking. Imagine his reach, whether in Hamilton or in some of those Muslim-dominated old industrial towns, complementing the traditional Conservative appeal to property-owners. 'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished. Next year's Scottish elections will be the first test of whether figures on the British Right are prepared to put country before party. A possible by-election in Jacob Rees-Mogg's old seat may be another. But one thing is already clear. If the two parties are taking lumps out of each other all the way to the next general election, they will lose – and they will deserve to. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
