No 10 won’t say if fuel payments U-turn will be implemented in time for this winter – UK politics live

Robert Peston, ITV’s political editor, suggests in a blog post on the PM’s winter fuel payments U-turn that elegibility for it could be extended by making it available to all pensioners – but clawing it back from higher rate taxpayers (or encouraging them not to claim it in the first place). A similar system applies with child benefit. Peston also takes issue with the theory (set out by me in the PMQs snap verdict at 1.44pm, but available elsewhere too) that, with U-turns, as Macbeth would put it, “if it were done .. then ‘twere well it were done quickly”. Peston says: The charge will be repeated for months that he has been forced into an admission that he made a mistake, while being unable to put the u-turn humiliation behind him precisely because we won’t know how generous the new system will be for some time yet. In his own article on the U-turn, Henry Zeffman set out an alternative argument in support of the U-turn being announced now. He says: Winter fuel was by no means the only contentious element of this government’s economic policy. There is a rebellion brewing on the government’s welfare cuts. Those are likely to face a vote in the Commons next month although estimates of how big the rebellion might be vary wildly. The government is in no mood to concede on that issue - as demonstrated by work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall’s speech this morning. [See 10.47am.] Apart from anything else, they cannot afford to - at least without choosing to change their main tax plans or their borrowing rules. The welfare reforms raise far more money than the means-testing of winter fuel was meant to. But Sir Keir and his party whips will now be able to reassure anxious Labour MPs that they do listen to their complaints, even if they cannot address them in every area. The SNP says Keir Starmer should replace his proposed partial U-turn over winter fuel payments with a full U-turn. Stephen Flynn, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, said in a statment: The Labour party robbed pensioners of their winter fuel payments and only a full and immediate U-turn will do. With energy bills and the cost of living soaring on Keir Starmer’s watch, pensioners need support now - not vague promises of an unspecified, partial climbdown months down the line. Having finally admitted he was wrong, Keir Starmer must fully reverse the Labour Party’s cuts to the winter fuel payment - and abandon its plans to impose even more austerity cuts to disabled people and public services at the spending review. Keir Starmer’s comment about winter fuel payments (WFP) at PMQs (see 12.07pm) implies the government is not going to restore it to everyone, but is going to extend eligibility for it. When Rachel Reeves cut the payment for most pensioner, she said it would continue to go to people on pension credit, a benefit paid to the poorest pensioners. This meant that, in England and Wales, the number of people getting WFPs (worth £300 for the highest payments) fell from around 11 million to 1.5 million. The obvious way to increase eligibility would be to allow more people to claim pension credit. But this would be expensive because it would involve the pension credit budget rising too. In a briefing note, the Resolution Foundation suggests that the government could allow people getting other benefits to use them as passport benefits for WFPs. But it says that creating a new, standalone eligibility threshold (household income would be the obvious one) would be complicated, and perhaps impossible. It explains: One option cited would be to ‘raise the threshold’ for WFP eligibility, which is currently given to everyone entitled to Pension Credit (PC). However, the most straightforward option of raising the PC threshold by 10 per cent would cost £2.5 billion – more than the original policy saved. Alternatively, creating a new threshold and test for WFP, and raising by 20 per cent above the existing PC threshold, would cost around £100 million, and help around 400,000 more families. However, there are huge doubts whether creating this new test is even possible, as it would further complicate an already complex system beset with low take-up rates. A far more effective way to ensure more people receive WFP is to extend to eligibility to those receiving Housing Benefit and disability benefits, as well as Pension Credit. Doing so would extend support to 1.3 million more pensioner families, at a cost of £300 million a year. In a statement Ruth Curtice, the relatively new Resolution Foundation chief executive, says this would be a “sensible way forward”. It may be that they are thinking along similar lines in the Treasury – not least because Curtice spent 15 years working there in senior roles before she took up her new job. But a policy that extended winter fuel payments to another 1.3 million people would still leave most pensioners missing out – which would fail to stop the policy being an electoral calamity for Labour. Curtice also points out that there are two other areas where the Treasury is under considerable pressure to reverse welfare cuts. Today’s announcement must be seen in the context of the government’s wider welfare trilemma as it also steers through controversial health and disability benefit reforms and prepares a new child poverty strategy. This U-turn underlines the need for more ambition on tackling child poverty. Removing the two-child limit on support would allow the government to show it is committed to raising living standards for all generations, and not just those beyond working age. A reader asks: Is it a portent of the imminent end for Badenoch that Andrew reported only two of her questions? All hope is lost for the opposition when the political press stops covering the leader. It may well be the case that Kemi Badenoch’s days are numbered. But that is not why I did not cover her questions in full today. I missed the earlier ones because Keir Starmer said something newsworthy before the Badenoch exchanges started, and it took me a while to prepare a post including a link to No 10 claiming (falsely) two weeks ago that they were not going to change the policy. By the time that was ready, it made more sense to plough on with the rest of PMQs in real time than to catch up with the early Badenoch questions, which were less interesting. Libby Brooks is the Guardian’s Scotland correspondent. Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar is out in Larkhall today with Davey Russell, his local candidate for the byelection in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse where Reform UK is hoping to make significant gains. Sarwar was asked whether Reform is running a racist campaign after they shared a clip of him encouraging south Asians to stand for election. Sarwar said: It’s really important to stress that people who are tempted to vote Reform, the vast majority if not all of them, they’re not racist, they’re not stupid, it’s not that they don’t understand politics. It’s because they’re scunnered [done with it] because they think government doesn’t work for them. But he went on to say: [Reform are] deliberately using tropes that are designed to cause division. Perfect example, being the advert they are posting in this constituency, claiming that I’m going to stand up for another nation, a nation that, yes, my parents are from, but I’m Scottish as anybody else. And I’m someone that wants to serve and deliver for the people of Scotland. The byelection is taking place on 5 June following the death from cancer of much-loved SNP MSP Christina McKelvie. It was set to be a two-horse race between Labour and the Nationalists until it became apparent that Reform is making significant inroads in the constituency. The Guardian has been hearing from voters who feel disappointed with the performance of both main parties at Holyrood and Westminster and are now considering Reform, despite the previous unpopularity of Nigel Farage north of the border. The Scottish Labour candidate today dismissed this as a “protest vote” which “tends to be ex-Tories”, but the Guardian has heard from a much wider range of people considered Reform in June. Unison, Britain’s largest public sector union, has said the government should revise its fiscal rules to allow more benefits spending. Looser rules would allow more borrowing. In a statement on the PM’s winter fuel payments U-turn, Christina McAnea, Unison’s general secretary, said: At long last ministers seem to have listened. Removing the winter fuel allowance from hard-pressed pensioners was never a great idea. No one would ever argue wealthy pensioners should have kept the winter fuel cash, but snatching it from all but the very poorest was a terrible decision … Ministers now need to look again at their unpalatable welfare cuts. The wrongs of previous Conservative administrations won’t be righted by going after the most vulnerable in society … The chancellor should revise her fiscal rules so the government can reinstate the winter fuel allowance, row back on its unpopular welfare cuts and invest in the UK’s damaged public services. It is not just the Conservatives who have been calling for a U-turn on winter fuel payments; the Greens point out that they have been asking for this too. In a statement the Green MP Siân Berry said: The prime minister’s statement shows just how much pressure he is now under, from the public, Greens and others in opposition, and many Labour MPs, to demonstrate he has at least some understanding that his government’s cuts are hurting people. To truly right these many wrongs, the chancellor must try harder, and use her upcoming fiscal decisions to tax extreme wealth fairly. This could not only restore payments in full to the millions of pensioners Labour has betrayed, but also enable her to reconsider other cruel political choices, including £5bn in cuts to welfare and her refusal to cancel the two-child benefit cap. Together, these U-turns would save hundreds of thousands from being pushed into poverty, and Greens will be making the case for this alongside everyone affected until this government does the right thing. Age UK has said it welcomes the PM’s commitment to partially reverse the winter fuel payments cut, but that it is reserving judgment until it gets the full details. In a statement, Caroline Abrahams, the charity’s director, said: We will judge the success of any new policy proposals the government brings forward by the extent to which they help vulnerable older people and those on low and modest incomes to be able to heat their homes adequately next winter. A social tariff for energy may be a big part of the longer term answer but in the short term, the government must act quickly to support pensioners next winter – which may feel a long way off but is really only six months away. At the post-PMQs lobby briefing Downing Street was unable to say how many more pensioners would receive winter fuel payments or whether the reforms would be in place this winter. Asked if the changes would be in place this coming winter, the PM’s spokesman said: We obviously want to deliver this as quickly as possible, but the prime minister was very clear in the house that this has to be done in an affordable way, in a funded way, and that’s why those decisions will be taken at a future fiscal event. Officials insisted the pledge to change course was based on the government’s stewardship of the economy and the public finances, PA Media reports. Asked how markets could have confidence in the government if it performed a U-turn whenever Labour suffered an electoral setback, the PM’s press secretary said: We will only make decisions when we can say where the money is coming from, how we’re going to pay for it and that it’s affordable. And that’s what you’ve heard from the prime minister today. Peter Walker is a Guardian senior political correspondent. The Conservatives are claiming that the winter fuel payments U-turn is a direct result of pressure from Kemi Badenoch – while also refusing to say whether a Badenoch-led government would restore the winter fuel payments in full, or even increase the thresholds. “It is Kemi that has led on this campaign to reverse the winter fuel cuts. Today they U-turned, and that is as a result of Kemi’s pressing,” her spokesperson told reporters after PMQs. Asked what the Conservatives would do, he refused to say, arguing that he was “not writing a budget for 2029”. He also did not set out what the Tories were now calling on the government to do, saying this had not yet been decided. The spokesperson also dismissed the idea that Badenoch had seemingly missed Starmer’s initial announcement of the U-turn, when she pressed Keir Starmer on whether he would make one. He said: He didn’t give much detail at all. He said they would be looking at it. She then referenced in her question that she had heard what he said, but [said] let’s try and get more detail. Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, did at least pick up on Keir Starmer’s winter fuel payments U-turn during their PMQs exchanges (see 12.17pm), immediately pushing for an assurance that the cuts would be reversed in full. He is now saying that the U-turn will take too long, and that Starmer should apologise. In a statement issued after PMQs he said: The world’s longest U-turn continues. The prime minister has today announced the ‘concepts of a plan’ that have come far too late for the millions of pensioners forced to freeze in their own homes over the winter. The least those people deserve is an apology for this punitive policy and a serious proposal from the prime minister on how he will begin to pick up the pieces from his government’s disastrous decision. Not vague words that will take months to materialise into something meaningful. Here is the statement CCHQ issued about Keir Starmer’s winter fuel payments U-turn at the end of PMQs. Helen Whately, the shadow work and pensions secretery, said: Week after week at PMQs Kemi Badenoch and the Conservatives have pressed the prime minister to U-turn on his cruel winter fuel payments cut. And week after week Keir Starmer defended the policy. It’s taken the threat of his MPs losing their jobs, and his cabinet descending into open warfare over which taxes to raise, for the prime minister to finally recognise the hardship his winter fuel policy has caused. Pensioners already suffering under this government’s spiralling inflation will want to see the detail of this latest screeching U-turn as soon as possible. All politicians have to perform U-turns from time to time. They can be performed competently, or badly, and the key factor is normally timing. Keir Starmer’s winter fuel payment U-turn today was probably somewhere inbetween. On the hand, arguably it came six months too late. Labour has been massively damaged by the decision to remove the winter fuel payment from most pensioners, as campaigners discovered during the local elections. It is the Labour policy that people remember, and dislike, the most. But a U-turn before the local elections would have just been an admission of a mistake. This U-turn, as Starmer’s words, is being linked to a narrative about the economy improving. (See 12.07pm.) In other words, it can be spun as part of a Treasury success story. No 10 has been thinking about this for weeks (as the Guardian first reported) and it is clear now that, at the very least, the eligibility rules will be changed so that “more” pensioners get it next year. In theory it could be restored in full – ‘all’ is one version of ‘more’ – but given there are strong grounds for saying wealthy pensioners don’t need it, a new threshold seems the most likely option. Given that No 10 may not have finalised the policy, you could have argued that Starmer should have delayed the U-turn until the budget in the autumn, when the full details will be available. But U-turns are like root canal surgery; the sooner you get it over and done with, the better. U-turns are embarrassing because they mean the opposition has been shown to be right. Opponents normally respond with triumphalism – although U-turns tend to be bad for the opposition in the long term, because they remove a grievance holding the government back. (You don’t hear much about two-tier justice now after Shabana Mahmood 180-degreed on Sentencing Council guidelines the MoJ had approved only days before.) But an opposition leader can only indulge in a victory lap if they have the gumption to spot the U-turn in the first place. And here Kemi Badenoch failed dismally today. It was obvious what Starmer was saying in his response to Sarah Owen. But she at first ignored it completely and, in a later question, without referencing his earlier comments, she asked: Is he planning to U-turn on winter fuel cuts? Starmer replied: As the economy improves, we want to take measures that will impact on people’s lives and therefore we will look at the threshold, but that will have to be part of a fiscal event. And – astonishingly – Badenoch still couldn’t, or wouldn’t, acknowledge what Starmer was saying. She described him as “a man who can’t give a straight answer to a simple question”. A more competent opposition leader would have immediately picked up on what Starmer was saying, welcomed it as a Tory victory (the Conservatives have been calling for this for months), and pushed for detail. CCHQ did eventually come out with an appropriate response, which they sent to journalists at 12.29pm. When your press office has to sent out a statement with the words you should have used at PMQs yourself, you should know you’ve messed up. Near the end of PMQs Rupert Lowe, the independent MP originally elected as Reform UK, asked Keir Starmer about the prison sentence given to Lucy Connolly, who was jailed for 31 months for inciting racial hatred last year. Yesterday she lost her appeal against the sentence. Lowe asked: Does the prime minister agree that imprisoning Lucy Connolly, a young mother with a 12-year-old daughter for one foolish social media post, soon deleted, is clearly not an efficient or fair use of prison? Starmer replied: Sentencing is a matter for our courts, and I celebrate the fact that we have independent courts in this country. I am strongly in favour of free speech, we’ve had free speech in this country for a very long time and we protect it fiercely. But I am equally against incitement to violence against other people. I will always support the action taken by our police and courts to keep our streets and people safe. At the end of PMQs Richard Tice, the deputy leader of Reform UK, used a point of order to pay tribute to Patrick O’Flynn, the former Daily Express political editor and Ukip MEP, who has died at the age of 59. Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker, echoed what Tice said, describing O’Flynn as a “long-serving and well-respected member of the lobby”. O’Flynn was influential in persuading the Express newspapers to back Ukip and withdrawal from the EU in 2015, a move which helped to pave the way for other rightwing papers to back leave a year later. As an MEP, he was also one of the many Ukip politicians marginalised after a run-in with Nigel Farage – although that did not stop Farage paying tribute to him after his death was announced. Kirsty Blackman (SNP) asks why the government is still selling Israel parts of F-35 jets, which are being used to drop bombs on starving people. Starmer says Blackman does not understand how the process works. She “doesn’t know the detail at all”, he says He says the UK does not give the parts directly to Israel. It contributes into a “pot” where parts for the jet go. If we were to stop that, they couldn’t be used by other countries in the other conflicts, including those in which we are involved … They’re not sold directly. They go into a pot. If we were to stop that, they wouldn’t then be available to others around the world who desperately need them in the conflicts they’re engaged in, and that’s why we won’t do it. Lee Anderson (Reform UK) says Starmer keeps telling “gullible” MPs that he has deported 24,000 people. He says he thinks most of them are just over-stayers. How many are failed asylum seekers? Starmer says he is proud the government has removed over 24,000 people. And the government is passing the borders bill, giving Border Force more powers. Reform UK voted against. And that is because Reform don’t want to fix the problem, he says. That is “party before country”. And he points out that Anderson is standing in for Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, who is not here, and who was not in the Commons yesterday. Farage is on holiday. Referring to one of the UK-EU deal proposals, Starmer says Farage was “first through the e-gates”. This generates a lot of laughter. Alistair Carmichael, the Lib Dem MP who chairs the Commons environment committee, says his Labour-dominated committed has called for the inheritance tax plans to be delayed. Will the government agree? Starmer declines to give that assurance, and says farmers will benefit from the deal with the EU. Andrew Pakes (Lab) asks about the betting shops and vape stores taking over high streets. He asks if the government will help communities take back control of these spaces. Starmer says planning laws can be used to protect these spaces. Starmer pays tribute to Cheryl Korbel, whose campaign helped to persuade the government to change the law to impose new punishments on offenders how refuse to attend court for sentencing. He says he knows how important this is from his conversations with her. Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, said Starmer “teased the house” with his comments about the winter fuel payments. Will he commit to reversing those cuts in full? Starmer repeats what he said earlier (see 12.13pm), saying he wants to ensure that “more pensioners” are eligible. Davey says he thinks he welcomes this. And he says he hopes carers also benefit from the improvements to the economy. He asks about a family where a carer looks after her severely disabled husband and they will lose £12,000 from the cuts. Starmer says people who need support should continue to get it. But he says the system must be reformed. Here is Starmer’s full comment on the winter fuel payment in his answer to Sarah Owen. He said: I recognise that people are still feeling the pressure of the cost-of-living crisis including pensioners. As the economy improves, we want to make sure people feel those improvements in their days as their lives go forward. That is why we want to ensure that as we go forward more pensioners are eligible for winter fuel payments. As you would expect Mr Speaker, we will only make decisions we can afford, that is why we will look at that as part of a fiscal event. Labour MPs jeer at Badenoch as she asks her final question. Some of them are laughing. The Speaker has to intervene to establish order. Kemi Badenoch has just asked if Keir Starmer is planning to U-turn on winter fuel payments. She did not seem to appreciate what Starmer said earlier. Starmer says, as the economy improves, he wants to look at the thresholds. Badenoch claims Starmer cannot give a straight answer to the question. (Again, she did not seem to appreciate that he did give a clear. This a classic example of someone not able to take yes for an answer.) Sarah Owen (Lab) asks what the government will do to help struggling pensions. Starmer says the economy is improving. As it improves, the government wants to make sure people, including pensioners, feel that difference. That is why the government wants to ensure “more pensioners” are eligible for winter fuel payments. He says the government will take decisions at the next fiscal event – ie, at the budget in the autumn. This is a big U-turn. Two weeks ago Downing Street said flatly the policy was not changing. (This was after my colleague Pippa Crerar reported that they were rethinking the policy. Not for the first time, Pippa was right – and what No 10 was saying was wrong.) UPDATE: Starmer said: I recognise that people are still feeling the pressure of the cost-of-living crisis including pensioners. As the economy improves, we want to make sure people feel those improvements in their days as their lives go forward. That is why we want to ensure that as we go forward more pensioners are eligible for winter fuel payments. As you would expect Mr Speaker, we will only make decisions we can afford, that is why we will look at that as part of a fiscal event. Lewis Cocking (Con) asks when the PM will stop all illegal immigration into the UK. Starmer says it was the last government that lost control of the borders. And the Tories voted against legislation giving border officials more powers. Keir Starmer starts by offering his condolences to the families and friends of the three people killed in the fire in Bicester last week. He says the mother of one of the victims is in the gallery. He says the government has achieved its third trade deal in three weeks. This will improve people’s lives, he says. Paul Lewis, the financial broadcaster, says, in a post on social media, that he thinks most of the Angela Rayner proposals for tax rises (see 9.24am) are sensible. Pension lifetime allowance not sensible; there are better ways to control exploitation of pension tax relief. But the other measures Rayner suggested to Reeves seem very sensible and indeed modest. https://bit.ly/4dB1Q4Y Divi allowance cut by Tories from £5000 to £500 As Chloe Chaplain from the i reports, during her Q&A after her speech Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, played down the impression given by the Angela Rayner memo leak (see 9.24am) that the cabinet is split over taxing the wealthy. Kendall asked if she agrees with Rayner that instead of cutting spending taxes should be increased on the wealthy. Says ‘the entire cabinet backs Rachel’s economic strategy’ and adds some people may have forgotten but ‘we actually have raised taxes on some of the richest’ Here is the order paper for PMQs, with the names of MPs down to get a question. YouGov has published more details of its polling on the electorate’s relationship with Labour, as covered in the Sky News report mentioned earlier. (See 10.06am.) It shows that Reform UK supporters are most likely to think that Labour is trying hard to appeal to them – but least likely to say they would respond positively. Only 4% of Reform UK supporters say they would consider voting Labour, the poll says. Sometimes when a minister says they are “listening carefully” to their critics, as Liz Kendall did in her speech this morning (see 10.37am), it means a rethink is imminent. And sometimes they are just being polite, and it does not signify anything policywise at all. During the Q&A Kendall implied it was more of the latter. This is from Chris Smyth. I ask her if there will be any changes as demanded by MPs She says while “we want to make sure we address all of people’s concerns, but stressed: “whatever the fiscal position that the government faces, I think the system as a whole needs to change.” Here is a verdict on Liz Kendall’s speech from Chris Smyth, Whitehall editor at the Times. Kendall speech very passionate - and utterly adamant that she won’t change course Much more vocal that Britain can’t afford the current welfare system than she’s been before But not sure that will convince Labour MPs who might prefer Angela Rayner’s tax rises Kendall ended her speech with a rallying cry. Labour’s mission is to give people hope tomorrow will be better than today, that we will create the jobs, opportunities, opportunities and public services people want and deserve, because a future dependent on Labour’s mission is to give people hope that tomorrow will be better than today, that we will create the jobs, opportunities, and public services people want and deserve. Because a future dependent on benefits is not good enough for people in Blackpool, Birkenhead or anywhere else. I am confident we will deliver, because all the evidence shows hundreds of thousands of sick and disabled people want to work, that when they have a government that is on their side and provides the right support they can get work, and that this can transform their lives. Our task is urgent, not just because we only have four more years of this parliament, which is no time at all, although this is true, not just because we must deliver real change to fight the rise in support for populists, although we must, but because the people who we came into politics to serve cannot and should not wait any longer for a chance to build a decent life, because they have waited far too long already. Kendall is now taking questions. Unfortunately, the live feed has cut out for those, but I will post later when I get some copy. Kendall has used her speech to set out in detail the proposals she is making for welfare reform, emphasising the initiatives that will help people back into work. She is now talking about the plan to reduce eligibility for Pip (the personal independence payment, a disability benefit). She says: I know the concerns that have been raised about our proposals. I am listening carefully to all the points people raise. But nine out of 10 people claiming Pip at the point when the changes come into force …will not be affected by the end of the parliament. And even with the changes we are making, there will still be 750,000 more people receiving Pip by the end of this parliament than there were at the start, and spending will be £8bn higher. This is partly explained by the fact that, although eligibility for Pip is being reduced, people currently on the benefit will not lose out until they are reassessed, and Pip claims are not reassessed every year. UPDATE: See 10.58am for more on what she may have meant by this. Liz Kendall started her speech by saying that the government’s welfare reforms were rooted in Labour’s “enduring values of fairness, equality and opportunity”. She said that nearly one in 10 people of working age were on at least one sickness or disability benefit, and that more than one in eight young person is not in employment, education or training. A Labour government should not accept that, she said. Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, is about to give a speech to the IPPR thinktank. There is a live feed at the top of the blog. Here is our preview story by Heather Stewart and Jessica Elgot. Sky News has released some analysis this morning showing that fewer than half the people who voted Labour at the general election would support the party now. But only 6% of them have gone to Reform UK, the YouGov polling suggests. In his report, Sam Coates says these figures suggest Keir Starmer should be doing more to address the concerns of Labour supporters who might defect to parties on the left, and spending less time worrying about appealing to the Reform curious. While 11% of Labour voters may one day be open to voting Reform, 70% are at risk of going to the Lib Dems or Greens - seven times the threat from Reform. And typically, these voters don’t like the hard line, Reform-leaning policies of Sir Keir Starmer recently. The local elections show there is a threat to Labour from Reform. But our data suggests Keir Starmer trying to be Nigel Farage lite isn’t the answer. Inflation in the UK jumped by more than expected last month to 3.5% – its highest rate in more than a year – after dramatic increases in water bills, energy costs and council tax, Phillip Inman reports. Good morning. Today the Institute for Fiscal Studies has launched its interactive ‘Be the Chancellor’ tool. In a press release announcing it, Tim Leunig, the chief economist at Nesta, which has developed it with the IFS, says: To govern is to choose. This tool will help policymakers, would-be policymakers, and those who seek to influence them make better choices. As it makes clear, there are no easy choices facing our country today. The tool allows anyone to explore the consequences of different choices on spending and tax. One person who may be logging on is Angela Rayner, the deputy Labour leader and housing secretary. According to the Telegraph splash, she is taking a keen interest in the government’s tax policy, and wants taxes to go higher. In his story, Ben Riley-Smith reports: In the document, seen by our reporters, the deputy prime minister proposed eight tax increases including reinstating the pensions lifetime allowance and changing dividend taxes. She also suggested new raids on the million people who pay the additional rate of income tax and a higher corporation tax level for the banks. The measures would raise taxes by £3bn to £4bn a year, according to estimates cited in the document. The real figure would be much higher, as no specific estimates were given for some policies. The memo amounts to a direct challenge to the chancellor’s approach this year of using spending cuts rather than tax rises to fill the black hole in the nation’s finances. Here is a Telegraph graphic showing how much some of the Rayner proposals might raise. Secret government memos are always interesting. But proposals in Whitehall documents don’t always become official policy, and the Telegraph points out that Rayner’s department sent this to the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, before the spring statement. Despite speculation that Reeves might use the spring statement to raise taxes, in the end she didn’t, and the Rayner document is still just a wishlist. Amazingly, though, it seems to have found its way into the public domain. In his report, Riley-Smith implies that Rayner won’t be totally devastated to hear it on the news. Allies of the deputy prime minister have said she has become increasingly exasperated by having to publicly defend Treasury spending cuts, and is pushing back in private. Treasury insiders are understood to be making it clear that while Ms Reeves welcomes contributions from all cabinet colleagues, as chancellor she decides taxation and spending policy. Simon Finkelstein, a former Tory special adviser, describes this as: “An absolute classic of the genre: letters to the chancellor ahead of a spending review/fiscal event that are designed to be leaked...” The Conservative party has tried to capitalise on the leak but (as usual these days) it has fluffed its response by going over the top. In a statement, Mel Stride, the shadow chancellor, said: This confirms that we are still living with the Labour party of Jeremy Corbyn. At the very highest level, Labour ministers are debating which taxes to increase next. Stride seems to have missed the point that these proposals haven’t actually been implemented, and that the Labour leadership isn’t turning to “Corbynism” (not that these proposals amount to that anyway), which is why Rayner may be feeling “exasperated”. (Stride would have sounded more sensible if he had just issued a press statement challenging Keir Starmer to rule these ideas out.) The Tories might be critical but, as the Telegraph reports, Labour leftwingers approve of Labour’s proposals. Andy McDonald told the paper: My sense is that a lot of Labour MPs are concerned that the Chancellor’s fiscal rules and spending cut proposals hit those on lower incomes. Proposals to increase tax revenue from the wealthy would make tax fairer and support public services. And on the Today programme, asked if the Rayner proposals were “the sorts of things the government should be considering, another backbencher, Neil Duncan-Jordan, replied: “Absolutely.” He went on: There’s a very healthy debate inside the Labour party at the moment about how we should be raising additional funds rather than cutting benefits. And there’s a menu, I think, of options that we should be using, and these are just some of those. Doubtless we will hear more about this at PMQs. Here is the agenda for the day. 10am: Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, gives a speech at the IPPR thinktank defending the proposed welfare cuts. Noon: Keir Starmer faces Kemi Badenoch at PMQs. If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (normally between 10am and 3pm at the moment), or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word. If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn.bsky.social. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary. I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.