- Andrew Bailey right that the UK must urgently rebuild trade with Europe
- UK-US trade deal: Starmer must rule out “massive tax breaks” for Musk
- Rennie visits Children’s hospice helped by Scot Lib Dem budget deal
Andrew Bailey right that the UK must urgently rebuild trade with Europe
Responding to the Governor of the Bank of England’s comments that the UK now needs to “rebuild” Britain’s trade relationship with the EU, Liberal Democrat Deputy Leader and Treasury Spokesperson Daisy Cooper said:
Andrew Bailey has today added his voice to what Liberal Democrats have been saying for years: that we urgently need to rebuild our trading relationship with our closest and most significant economic partners in Europe.
This isn’t about revisiting the past, it’s about boosting our economy and deepening cooperation for the future. Despite the Government’s US deal, Trump’s trade tariffs are still hitting key British industries and threatening the livelihoods of people across the UK.
The Government must embrace a pragmatic and ambitious approach to our relationship with the EU – cutting red tape and providing a vital boost for our businesses.
UK-US trade deal: Starmer must rule out “massive tax breaks” for Musk
Responding to reporting that the UK has not ruled out a tech deal as part of future trading negotiations with the US, Daisy Cooper MP, Liberal Democrat Deputy Leader and Treasury Spokesperson, said:
As the Government starts the next phase of UK-US trade negotiations, the PM must be clear that the UK won’t trade away our children’s online safety, weaken protections against online scammers or give big tax breaks to US tech giants.
The PM must express that any “science and tech partnership” with the US should boost R&D and strengthen supply chains – not double down on making the online world even more of a Wild West.
Negotiating in the UK’s interests must include keeping our children safe online and ruling out massive tax breaks to tech billionaires like Elon Musk.
Rennie visits Children’s hospice helped by Scot Lib Dem budget deal
Scottish Liberal Democrat MSP Willie Rennie has today visited Rachel House Children’s Hospice in Kinross to hear about their work providing palliative care, respite care, and end-of-life care for children and young people with life-shortening conditions, as well as support for their families.
His visit follows Scottish Liberal Democrat budget negotiations which secured an additional £5m for the hospice sector to help recruit skilled staff.
Mr Rennie said:
I’d like to thank the staff of Rachel House for welcoming here today to see their important work. It is an incredibly powerful experience to hear about what they are doing week-in week-out to help children with life shortening conditions and their families.
At the recent Scottish Government budget, Scottish Liberal Democrats took the opportunity seriously and secured millions of pounds for the hospice sector so it was important for me to come and visit and hear about how additional funds can be put to work to support service users by recruiting skilled staff.
Liberal Democrats worked to make a real difference through the budget process by helping hospices like Rachel House alongside more funds for colleges, long Covid, GPs, dentists and more.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1360
Free clinics for families affected by dementia
The Women of Mumbles Head
Simon R
David Le Grice
Andy Daer
John Grout
Peter Martin
17 Comments
I am beginning wonder what exactly is the direction of this Government. We keep hearing about tax breaks for the likes of Musk, Bezos and others. What about increasing the tax-free allowance for people in THIS country? All we hear is that the income tax freeze must continue. Surely, if people pay less tax, they have more money to spend and support the high street shops and cafes of small businesses.
“Surely, if people pay less tax, they have more money to spend ”
But – there’s no more stuff, so to make things balance you have to either
1> cut government expenditure – choose pensions/ welfare benefits/NHS/ Defence/ education/ something else (all smaller)
2> put up interest rates to reduce the inflation
3> accept inflation.
Oh, I know. The growth fairy will come along and make it all work. I have a bridge to sell.
There is an answer – that is to raise the taxes on the rich. But the first priority should be to look at the law for companies to ensure that they are held responsable if they have not ensured safety for their workers, customers and the public.
“tax the rich”
It obviously sounds attractive as “the rich” must mean people who earn more than “me”.
I wonder how much it would raise though. Some of the very rich would move to (say) Dubai.
Median income is £37.5k. Is an income of double that rich? £65k They are already paying 40% on their income over ~£50k. How about £130k? That’s around the 97th percentile income (3% earn that or more). They get 0 personal allowance and pay tax at 45% on their income over £125k.
I suppose you could put that 45% up to 60%, and then 80% on income over £200k.
We are talking about 1 or 2% of earners. I’m sure it would raise money, I’m no believer in the Laffer curve below about 90% , but I wonder just how much. I’m sure someone in the Party, perhaps Daisy Cooper as Treasury spox, would be able to work out how much.
“Surely, if people pay less tax, they have more money to spend”
Doesn’t always follow that they DO spend it, though. Whether it’s wealthy people who sit on cos they don’t need ‘more stuff’; or people down the line putting more into pension pots, or reducing the mortgage; or further down the line, reducing credit card bills or having the heating on a bit longer…
As with every government it’s a question of priorities. £15 billion by the end of this parliament Ukraine will have received. The WFA will follow Labour throughout the rest of this governments tenure. It won’t be forgotten or forgiven.
You have to remember that most income statistics are based on equivalised family income. “Median income is £37.5k” actually means that half of families have a standard of living equivalent to a single person on £37.5K net. If that’s a single person or a two-earner childless couple, they will be facing a rate of 28% on earned income. A single earner couple with three children might be on well below median household equivalised income and yet paying 42% in taxes plus having three lots of child benefit withdrawn (about an extra 15%).
“A single earner couple with three children” you’re suggesting that median in this situation is over £150k? So someone earning £150k isn’t “the rich” after all? Goodness, finding someone to tax is going to be hard, isn’t it?
No. The Single earner couple with three children would have one good salary in the low 60s but split five ways their equivalised family income would be below the norm.
I didn’t say anything about who I consider rich or that I thought only the rich should pay more taxes. For the record though, I think that most families on more than mean equivalised income should be paying more tax and most families with some earned income but below the median income should pay less. This could be achieved by introducing Universal Basic Income or negative income tax, uprating child benefit and making it universal again and increasing income tax rates including basic rate. The large family above would be slightly better off because the non-earner would get a tax rebate plus extra CB while a childless couple on 40K each would pay significantly more.
I really don’t know what the fuss is about. in 1978-9, basic tax rate between £750 and 7500 was 34% and the highest rate for incomes in excess of £23,000 was 83% and there were a number of tax bands in between. [see: https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1978/apr/17/8-income-tax-charges-and-rates-for-1978%5D
That was pre Thatcher who started the trend for greatly increased indirect taxation and hugely reduced income tax. We have all been dragged along into believing high income tax rates are bad and that instead we should have highly regressive indirect taxes like VAT, petrol duty, alcohol duty, air passenger duty and a whole rane of other stealth taxes introduced especially by Gordon Brown.
In 1978 the gap between rich and poor was much smaller and the rich paid large amounts of income tax with which to fund public services. A few, like Mick Jagger, went to live abroad, but most moaned and paid up. Since it wasn’t really worth earning large salaries, top rates of pay were much lower.
I fail to see why we can’t go back to taxing people fully according to their income. It’s certain and actually quite difficult to avoid or evade. If you draw the net tightly (rather than allowing lots of exemptions) the HMRC can collect what the government needs to pay for the services we require.
Presumably the serried ranks of prosperous middle class ‘Middle England’ aren’t that keen on paying more in income tax. Getting a 75 plate new car probably has more attraction.
Some things are subject to a different set of rules, e.g., BBC News today :
“Public funding for the Royal Household has tripled in real terms since 2012, official figures show, with the rise driven largely by repairs and building work at Buckingham Palace.
The Sovereign Grant, which provides state funding for the monarchy, was introduced in 2012 at £31m per year. That has now risen to £132m, data from the House of Commons Library shows, and once inflation has been taken into account, that represents about a threefold increase.
The grant rose 53% in April, from £86.3m to £132.1m.
@Mick: Most of the duties you mention (petrol duty, alcohol duty, etc.) serve a useful purpose in discouraging people from doing things that are bad for society. Economically I think they are best viewed not so much as just taxes but also as part-payment for the external costs of the thing being taxed. That aside, I agree with you that raising more money through income tax is better and fairer than the raft of indirect taxes that have grown up largely though repeated (and unrealistic) manifesto promises by various parties not to raise headline income tax rates. However it’s not always true that income tax is hard to evade. Think about the tradesman who gets paid in cash etc.
Also, think how you’d feel if the Government took away 83% of the salary that you’d just spent the week earning as income tax. I think that really is far too high a rate by any reasonable moral standards. As for people going to live abroad – that is much much easier today than it was in the 1970s (and remote working is now very easy in many occupations where in the 1970s it would’ve been almost impossible). The fact that not many moved abroad to escape high tax rates in the 1970s is not a good guide to what might happen today.
Mick
We actually got less income tax then,
https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2025/05/08/tax-rich-1970s-loopholes/
@Mick @Simon
This was one of the strange claims made by the IFS: In a report released in 2024 they claimed today’s tax burden was too high compared to the pre-Thatcher era and that taxes should be reduced. I wanted someone to ask the reports authors if they wanted the rates of income tax to be “reduced” to 1960s levels…
The challenge is massively reducing the pay of senior executives in companies where huge salaries and Bonuses just emphasis and reinforce a macho culture.
@ David Goble
“I am beginning wonder what exactly is the direction of this Government. We keep hearing about tax breaks for the likes of Musk, Bezos and others.”
That is basically the Free port strategy. Musk is currently seeking free port status for his new facility in Texas, as it enables his business to avoid Trumps tariffs…
Going back to the early Thatcher years, I am reminded of Prof. Bhaskar‘s (one of my lecturers and advisor to Thatcher) take that the government should be concerned about the “motor industry in the UK” and not the “UK motor industry” (ie. BL). I think with respect to US businesses without existing serious investments in the UK, we should be in the first instance be incentivising those already in the UK to continue to invest and enable UK companies to better become global players. Something that is going to be difficult in the face of the amounts of money being thrown around by US investors which has claimed another victim in the form of Deliveroo.
@David Raw 11th May ’25 – 12:27pm…..“Public funding for the Royal Household has tripled in real terms since 2012, official figures show, with the rise driven largely by repairs and building work at Buckingham Palace……
David,
The Government documentation on “Protected species and development” states, “This protection often applies to the habitats supporting features they live in.”