Rachel Reeves has just painted herself into a corner, and Liberal Democrats must be ready to offer the escape route Britain needs.
As Wimbledon reaches its climax, there’s a lesson for Liberal Democrat strategy: the greatest players don’t just react to their opponent’s shots, they anticipate them. With Labour’s recent U-turn on disability benefit cuts, their retention of the two-child benefit cap, and their “triple tax lock” commitment, an autumn tax squeeze is now inevitable. The question isn’t whether it’s coming, but whether we’ll be ready with better alternatives.
Reading the Court
Labour have served themselves into a corner. Having pledged not to raise income tax, National Insurance, or VAT rates. the three taxes that generate £520bn annually, two-thirds of all government revenue, while facing mounting spending pressures, Chancellor Rachel Reeves is rapidly running out of options. The disability benefit U-turn alone adds £3bn to her fiscal gap, while winter fuel payment cuts save just £1.5bn.
This isn’t speculation. The Treasury Select Committee’s 2021 report “Tax after coronavirus” mapped out exactly this scenario, warning that the Conservative “triple tax lock” would come under severe pressure and force governments toward regressive alternatives.
The Treasury Committee’s Prophetic Warnings
What they predicted in 2021:
✅ “Triple tax lock” would become unsustainable
✅ Governments would resort to fiscal drag through frozen thresholds
✅ Capital taxes would be targeted for “quick wins”
✅ Pension tax relief would face restrictions
✅ National Insurance increases would damage employment (Sunak ignored this, and later reversed)
Every warning is now Labour’s reality.
Anticipating Labour’s Shots
So where will Labour’s autumn shots land? The Treasury Select Committee report provides clear clues about the limited options available:
Fiscal Drag Through Frozen Thresholds The Committee noted governments “could raise revenue simply by freezing income tax thresholds.” It’s the easiest way to raise taxes without breaking manifesto promises, but deeply regressive. Freezing all thresholds could raise £8bn by 2025, but would hit a teacher earning £35,000 proportionally harder than a CEO earning £350,000.
Capital Gains Tax Raids The Committee found a “compelling case for reform” of capital taxes. Expect CGT rates to rise from 20% to match income tax rates, and the £3,000 annual exemption to vanish entirely, raising perhaps £14bn but catching middle-class savers alongside the genuinely wealthy.
Pension Tax Restrictions The report highlighted the “regressive nature” of current pension tax relief. The lifetime allowance could return at £1m, or relief could be capped at the basic rate, hitting middle-class savers while leaving wealthy offshore arrangements untouched.
Stamp Duty Manipulation Higher rates on properties above £500,000 while claiming to help first-time buyers, the classic Labour playbook that raises £2bn while making family homes even less affordable.
What Happens If We Don’t Act?
Without preparation, we’ll be left issuing predictable press releases about “stealth taxes” while Labour frames us as unserious about public finances. We’ll watch from the sidelines as:
- Middle-income families lose another 5% of disposable income to fiscal drag
- Young professionals give up on homeownership entirely
- Small business owners face CGT bills that dwarf their actual profits
- Labour claims they “kept their promises” while picking taxpayers’ pockets
Labour spent five years attacking Conservative stealth taxes. Now they’re reaching for the same regressive playbook, proving they’re out of progressive ideas.
Our Return Strategy
The greatest tennis players don’t just defend, they turn defence into attack. While Labour’s moves may be politically inevitable, they represent a fundamental failure of progressive tax policy. As a former City Councillor who’s seen how national tax decisions affect local communities, I know we can do better. To give some examples of potential policies:
Fairer Taxation of Unearned Income
Where Labour will tinker with capital gains rates, we should address the fundamental unfairness that sees unearned income taxed more lightly than wages. Rather than unworkable wealth taxes, we should:
- Equalise capital gains and dividend tax rates with income tax, raising £12bn
- Reform council tax with new bands above £500,000 and regular revaluations
- Introduce a proportional property tax replacing stamp duty, making the system fairer while raising similar revenue
- Close inheritance tax loopholes that let the wealthiest estates pay just 10% effective rates
Corporate Tax Justice
The Committee supported “moderate increases” in corporation tax. We should go further, a minimum tax rate of 15% for all UK profits would raise £8bn from multinationals currently paying virtually nothing, while protecting genuine small businesses.
Digital Economy Leadership A 2% revenue tax on tech giants with UK revenues above £500m would raise £2bn annually, ensuring they pay their way in the communities they profit from, rather than Labour’s piecemeal approach. The US and Trump would hate it; but Canada is standing up to them on this and so should we.
Environmental Tax Transition
A properly designed carbon tax at £75 per tonne with full redistribution to households could raise £15bn while giving every family a £600 annual carbon dividend, replacing Labour’s regressive alternatives while driving the transition to net zero.
Learning from Champions
The Treasury Select Committee’s 2021 report contains a crucial lesson. Its cross-party warnings about National Insurance increases were ignored by Rishi Sunak, who proceeded with exactly the policy experts advised against, a 1.25 percentage point increase that damaged employment and was later reversed, vindicating the Committee’s analysis.
We cannot afford to be similarly unprepared. Labour’s autumn tax moves are as predictable as a Djokovic baseline rally. If we wait until the Budget to respond, we’ll be scrambling to return shots that have already passed us by.
Getting to Centre Court
Currently polling fourth nationally, Liberal Democrats risk being seen as players who’ve lost their edge. While we’re the third largest party in Westminster, our policy offering often feels predictable, “join a customs union with the EU and growth will follow.” That’s not wrong, but it’s hardly the comprehensive economic vision voters need to hear.
Labour’s inevitable tax policy crisis presents a golden opportunity to move up the rankings. When Reeves inevitably unveils her regressive stealth taxes, we need to be ready with a credible alternative that puts us at the centre of the debate and that shows we’ve got better, more credible plans for progressive taxation than any other party.
Match Point: Our Action Plan
As someone who’s worked in finance and seen how these decisions play out in practice, I believe we need our parliamentary team developing comprehensive tax reform proposals now. Not as hasty reactions to Labour’s Budget, but as carefully prepared alternatives that demonstrate economic seriousness.
Immediate Next Steps:
- By September: The party should issue a call for evidence across our membership and seek to identify our tax experts (accountants, economists, former treasury officials etc.,) to be drawn from in the future.
- Before Conference: Parliamentary researchers should compile international best practices on wealth taxation
- At Autumn Conference: Dedicate serious workshop time to tax reform and use that forum to test messages.
- By October: Be ready with fully-costed progressive alternatives to close the fiscal gap (with an aim to removing the two-child benefit cap?)
Our MPs shouldn’t be doing this alone. The Liberal Democrats have deep expertise within our membership: tax professionals, economists, local government finance leads who understand how national decisions affect communities. Remember, it was a member-led initiative that developed our personal allowance policy, one of our greatest coalition successes. We need that same collaborative approach now.
The Treasury Select Committee showed us the court layout four years ago. Labour’s position is becoming increasingly predictable. We know they’ll need to raise at least £20bn in additional revenue. We know their options are limited by manifesto commitments.
The question is whether we’ll be ready with winning shots that actually deliver progressive taxation, or whether we’ll be left watching from the sidelines as Labour serves up another regressive tax squeeze.
The greatest players don’t just anticipate their opponent’s next move, they use it to climb the rankings. It’s time Liberal Democrats did the same.
* Jamie joined the Lib Dems in 2014 and was elected as City Councillor for West Chesterton in May 2018.



14 Comments
The Labour Party will be fully aware of how voters react to political parties breaking election promises – they won’t make that mistake. We are not bound by their election promises so we can call for higher income taxes if we think that is the correct response to the fiscal shortfall. The Conservatives and Reform will call for cuts in welfare costs, especially for those who could work but don’t. Most voters are neither high income earners or ‘could work but don’t work’, but their sympathy is more likely to be with higher earners than with those living off the taxes paid by others when they could earn for themselves.
Rachel Reeves will probably have to choose between her election promises and her “iron clad” fiscal rules. Something will have to give. If fact she has already chosen to row back on promises. The electorate already knows this as the dire state of Labour’s polling indicates. Tax thresholds aren’t being raised in line with inflation and NI charges to employers, a jobs tax in RR own words, have been increased.
The promises only referred to taxes on working people. This leaves open the possibility of other taxes being raised. Fuel tax could just about be exempted in this way. Corporation tax could be increased and wealth taxes could also be imposed, without breaking any promises, but the indications are that this won’t be happening on ideological grounds.
Any realistic policy will need the support of our fellow citizens. There is a need to ensure that we all have access to the figures on things like how many immigrants are there in the country, how many are claiming benefit, how many people are there claiming benefit in regions where there are real jobs available.
I do not think it is rational to make decisions as citizens without basic information being available. I have just watched an internet piece which gives details of the wealth inequalities in the USA. We need similar figures here. And the same applies to things like education. We argue about the number of special needs children, but we have basic figures about this and also about family poverty. We need to examine these figures and find the relationship between them.
The authors approach seems to recommend that we oppose Rachel Reeves tax rises by proposing much larger ones , targeted largely as the sort of people who vote for us.
Labour have already broken their ridiculous manifesto tax pledge by increasing national insurance. Why shouldn’t middle class workers pay more tax? The tory tax rises were to pay for furlough, energy cap and more money for the NHS and care. By increasing employers ni, farmers and business iht they’ve wrecked the economy and caused unnecessary panic and distress. If taxes have to go up the most sensible and fair thing is to increase the basic rate of income tax.
Thank you Jamie. Proactively developing proposals seems the right way to go. I agree with taxing all forms of income equally, and raising higher level of tax on higher incomes. Raise the personal tax allowance for all, remove tapering and other deceptive constructs of recent governments. I would also like to see income tax liability judged in the same way as benefits, by household.
People interested in seeing how much can be raised from different taxes might find this useful – https://www.nesta.org.uk/data-visualisation-and-interactive/be-the-chancellor/
It only covers taxes for which we have good evidence on yield.
The amount of motor cars littering our streets just gets more and more. Private. vehicle motoring is an area that should be taxed if only to help reduce motor car useage.. I think 10 pence a litre fuel duty increase would be set to raise six billion pounds. Not sure how much an extra ten pounds on the vehicle license would raise also
@Christopher Haigh
“Private. vehicle motoring is an area that should be taxed if only to help reduce motor car useage..”
What about people who have no local public transport available? How do you expect them to get around (which could include getting to somewhere where they can access public transport)? What about disabled people?
“The amount of motor cars littering our streets just gets more and more.”
I really don’t understand why it’s acceptable to use a 4*2 metre area of the public highway for free to store on’s private motor vehicle. If I wanted to put a 4*2 metre storage unit on the road, possibly to store bicycles, it would not be allowed. So why cars?
Some roads are parked up both sides with cars on the pavements, so pedestrians have to use the road to get past.
@Jenny Barnes
To repeat my earlier questions:-
What about people who have no local public transport available?
What about disabled people?
Out of the thousands of cars parked on the roads very few, one suspects, are owned by disabled people.
Equally, very few are in complete public transport deserts.
And it still seems entirely reasonable to me that if you want to use 8 sq m of public highway you should pay for it – so in both those cases, they could continue to park their cars as before, but contribute to the lost utility for everyone else.
@Jenny Barnes
“Out of the thousands of cars parked on the roads very few, one suspects, are owned by disabled people.”
‘one suspects….’ – it would be helpful if, when you make such an assertion you provided some evidence.
“Equally, very few are in complete public transport deserts.”
Presumably you don’t feel they matter?
One point I would make – in many parts of the country our residential infrastructure dates back to when few people had cars.
I’m in my late 70s. For part of my childhood I lived in a residential road where many people had cars or light vans for good reasons – apart from disability for example their work required them to carry a lot of equipment with them.
The houses dated back to the early 20th century. Some had a parking space in their front garden but many did not.
@Nonconformistradical: To some extent the answer to that is that, if motoring was taxed at a level that adequately reflected the harm so many cars do to other people and to society in general, then you’d probably find that there would be adequate public transport, because if fewer people are driving, public transport would become much more viable.