I don’t know if you feel the same, but it seems to me that this is the longest run-up to a Budget that I can remember. We’ve been talking about it forever. At times the Government’s communications around Rachel Reeves’ second budget have made the Omnishambles Budget of 2012 look competent.
First we were raising income tax rates then we weren’t, the Black Hole in the country’s finances has been of varying sizes and suddenly there now seems to be billions down the back of the sofa to stave off a break in the manifesto promise.
I don’t mind paying more tax. In fact, if I want decent public services and to tackle poverty, I think a household on our income should be paying significantly more than we are. I really hope that our reaction to today’s announcements is more than “Aaaargh…..tax.”
So what do Lib Dems want to see from the Budget?
We’re looking for energy bills to be cut, cutting VAT for hospitality and getting a better deal with the European Union. We quite like the increase in the minimum wage, but we want to see more opportunities for businesses to grow as Treasury Spokesperson Daisy Cooper said:
Increasing the minimum wage is always welcome news for millions of low-paid workers but unless businesses are able to grow, there is a danger that this will result in fewer jobs being available overall.
The government must make people’s money go further by slashing energy bills, boosting our high streets with a cut to VAT for hospitality until 2027, and going for growth with a better deal with Europe.
We’ve opposed the two child benefit cap brought in by the Conservatives from the start so we should welcome its abolition.
After Lib Dem instigated research from the House of Commons Library showed that the costs of Brexit to the nation, namely a staggering £90 billion in tax revenue in 2024/25, Scottish spokesperson Susan Murray said:
The economy is at a standstill. Despite years of promises from the Conservatives and now Labour to kickstart growth and clamp down on crushing household bills, the British people are facing a cost-of-living permacrisis and yet more betrayals from those in charge.
The Government must not load struggling households or high streets with yet more tax rises to pay for its own mistakes. Rachel Reeves must take bold action to slash the cost of living, rescue our high streets, and start fixing the mess left by Brexit – by negotiating a new Customs Union with the EU, to grow our economy and bring in tens of billions for the Exchequer.
Anything else would be tantamount to a dereliction of duty.
Steve Darling, our DWP Spokesperson, has been talking about the impact of freezing tax thresholds on pensioners. I agree with him that we need to worry about those on the lowest incomes having to find extra money because they’ve been dragged into income tax.
This is a stealth tax bombshell that will hit pensioners hard, leaving those affected £800 a year worse off – and Labour is poised to make that nightmare even worse.
Rachel Reeves once called extending these tax thresholds a policy that would ‘hurt working people’. Now it’s clear she’s getting ready to copy the economic vandalism of the past.
The Chancellor must stand by her word, rule out an extension to this outrageous tax freeze at the Budget, and stop hammering pensioners who have already been left out in the cold by skyrocketing energy prices and the disastrous Winter Fuel Payment scandal.
According to a blog post from Independent Age for Equal Pay Day, many of the poorest older people are women so it is improtant that we take an intersectional approach to this:
While poverty affects almost two million of all older people across the UK, older women are disproportionately impacted. Behind closed doors and on fixed incomes, hundreds of thousands of older women are finding it harder to make ends meet. The statistics are stark:
Poverty among older women is projected to rise from 20% in 2022 to 26% by 2040[i]
Women aged 55 to 59 have 48% less private pension wealth than men in the same group[ii]
Older women too often face a future shaped not by rest and recognition, but by rising costs, shrinking incomes and a system they feel overlooks them. At Independent Age, we are determined to ensure that all older people in financial hardship receive better support which they are entitled to.
On this site our contributors have been discussing a more radical approach. George Turner and Tom Reeve discuss using the power of the state to tackle inequality and poverty.
Former leader Vince Cable looks at what’s happening to “wealth taxes” internationally and discusses one way of making sure the super rich pay their way.
Mathew Hulbert wants to see an end to the Lib Dem driven policy of the triple lock to boost equity between generations.
We shall bring you more news and reaction as we get it.
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings. You can find her on Bluesky at caronmlindsay.bsky.social



10 Comments
I wouldn’t mind paying more tax IF I had confidence that the government would spend it wisely. But Rachel Reeves’ performance over the past (seemingly interminable) weeks does not suggest that they will.
The £2.3bn being spent on removing the two child benefit cap, would have been better spent and more targeted if it had been spent on pre-school and junior schools to provide universal free meals and better longer day support so parents could have full-time jobs.
@ Roland. Sorry, Roland, as the former chair of a food bank, and also as a Cabinet member for Social Care, I profoundly disagree. Indeed, your use of the words universal and targeted contradict each other.
If you are going to have a welfare system at all then benefits should be related to need not arbitary caps. Self-evidently, a family of five need more to live on than a family of four.
The two child benefit cap was a cynical bit of politics from George Osborne seeking to capitalise on rather nasty Daily Mail attitudes to the poor. It has lead to a huge rise in child poverty.
There is a strange oddity in the budget statement. Council tax bands f-h are to be revalued, ostensibly for the purposes of charging the so-called mansion tax. Nothing has been said about how council tax will be levied on bands f-h. If it is on the revised valuations then council tax payers in bands f-h would face a rise in council tax of 500-700%. I do think this needs to be clarified. If it is not then we will see two separate council tax valuations for the same houses, a sure recipe for confusion.
“council tax payers in bands f-h would face a rise in council tax of 500-700%”
On a point of detail – the “surcharge” is not payable by “council tax payers” (who are the adult occupiers of residential property). It is payable by the owners – who may of course be different people.
Tristan Ward (or anybody who knows). Who gets the money? If the Council then the rich areas get richer and the poorer stay poor. Or does it go to the central government? If so, how is it redistributed and by whom? remember the central government spent levelling up money to Yorkshire but to Rishi Sunak’s constituency.
@David – I to am involved with several local community-based foodbanks and a homeless shelter, that assist the people the local Trussell Trust foodbank ignores; since before COVID.
My point was that giving £2.3bn to parents with children, is less targeted at the children than spending the money directly on services the children would benefit from. I see media reports are backing the viewpoint that increasing the monies paid to parents does little to address childhood poverty.
If we instead direct that money at universal early years provision ie. universal to all pupils of state preschools/schools, I would expect it to have a greater impact on reducing childhood poverty and it turning into adulthood poverty.
@ Peter wrigley
“Who gets the money? etc”
I’m afraid I don’t know but my bet is central government to be put into the general pot rather than being hypothecated in any way.
Tristan Ward. You miss my point. Council tax bands F-H are to be revalued. My question is not who will pay mansion tax as that’s clearly any homeowner with a property worth in excess of £2 million.
My question is how will council tax now be levied? If the rate of council tax remains the same for all bands and the new revalued tax bands are the basis for levying it, then council tax payers in bands F-H will, as I said, be facing huge rises in council tax of up to 700%. This really does need clarifying before the finance bill comes into law.