Rishi Sunak

THE chancellor could raise tens of billions from tax reforms that don’t hit “working people”, leading economists have said.

Rachel Reeves is under pressure to fill an estimated £50billion black hole in the public finances ahead of November’s autumn statement. 

1

Westminster is awash with rumours that Labour could extend the freeze on income tax thresholds.

However, critics say this would mean breaking Labour’s manifesto pledge not to increase taxes on “working people”.

But in a new report, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) urged the Chancellor to resist “half-baked” solutions like “simply hiking rates”. 

The IFS Green Budget Chapter report instead urges the chancellor to reform the “unfair” and “inefficient” tax system.

End capital gains tax relief on death

Reeves could scrap capital gains tax relief on death, the report said.

When you sell certain assets – like houses, land or other valuable items – you have to pay a tax on the profit you made on it.

However, there are some important exceptions.

For example, if someone dies and you inherit their asset, you don’t have to pay capital gains tax they would have paid.

But the IFS said Reeves should consider scrapping the relief, raising £2.3billion in 2029-30.

However, families could oppose the measure given Labour is already skimming more revenue off inherited wealth.

The inheritance tax threshold has been frozen at £325,000 since 2009.

And last year, Reeves announced she would extend the freeze until 2030.

Hit taxpayers with a ‘one-off’ wealth tax

Economists and politicians are often divided over whether a wealth tax would work.

Supporters argue that the UK’s richest 1% are wealthier than the bottom 70% – and that a wealth tax would reduce this inequality.

But critics say it would be an administrative nightmare and lead millionaires to leave the country, taking their businesses and tax revenues with them.

But if Labour does reach for wealth in the budget – it should opt for a “one-off” wealth tax, the IFS said.

The think tank argues this is a better option than a recurring wealth tax.

It would work by the government calculating how much people’s total assets are worth and taxing them over a certain threshold.

“An unexpected and credibly one-off assessment of existing wealth could in principle be an economically efficient way to raise revenue,” the IFS wrote.

However, a wealth tax that happened on a regular basis would have “serious drawbacks,” the think tank warned.

Valuing everyone’s wealth every year would be “extremely difficult,” it said.

Moreover, a regular tax could deter the highest tax payers from residing in the UK long-term, potentially hitting overall tax revenues.

But the IFS said that even a “one-off” levy could spell trouble if people don’t trust the government not to come back for more.

The report said: “The potential efficiency of such a tax could be
undermined, however, if announcing a one-off tax created expectations of, or uncertainty about, other future taxes.”

Double the council tax rates paid by highest value homes

A new council tax surcharge could raise up to £4.4billion.

Council tax is a local tax on residential properties in the UK, with homes assigned to Bands A to H based on their value.

Bands G and H generally include the highest value homes.

The IFS said doubling the council tax paid by these households could mean a £4.4billion boost.

However, critics already say the council tax system is “unfair and arbitrary”.

As reported by The Sun, families living in modest homes sometimes pay more than those in multi-million-pound mansions.

The root of the problem is simple – council tax bills are not based on what your home is worth today.

Instead, it’s based on its value way back in 1991, when homes were categorised into bands ranging from A to H. 

Decades of uneven house price growth mean this once-simple system is now riddled with inequalities.

Moreover, councils set their own tax rates – leading to a “postcode lottery”.

The average Band D council tax in England is £2,280, but councils set their own rates.

For example, in Wandsworth, people pay just £990, while in Nottingham, they pay £2,656.

This means that millions of homeowners pay much less compared to their property’s value than those in poorer areas, according to PropertyData.

Another potential problem is that the extra cash would go to local authorities rather than central government.

Local authorities use council tax to pay for local services like schools, bin collections and libraries.

So to make sure it reaps the benefits of the change, Downing Street could reduce the grants being paid to councils, the IFS said.

The UK government gives councils more than £69billion in funding – a 6.8% increase in cash terms compared to 2024-25.

But councils would likely still fight back against any funding downgrade – with sticky 3.8% inflation already eating into their grants.

Rejig inheritance tax

The IFS admits that changes to inheritance tax could ‘provoke’ strong reactions.

But its report said that the £9billion said annually is ‘modest’ – although high by historical standards.

Reforming death duties to abolish the additional £175,000 tax-free allowance could raise around £6billion, the economists wrote.

“One obvious option would be to increase the rate of inheritance tax from its current 40%,” the economists wrote.

They said an increase of just 1% would raise £0.3billion in 2029–30.

The government could also reduce the threshold at which the tax begins to be paid.

Currently, people can pass on up to £325,000 of wealth tax-free.

Then there’s an additional £175,000 tax-free allowance that can be used only when passing on a primary residence to a direct descendant.

Abolishing the second of these allowances, for example, could raise around £6billion in 2029–30, the IFS said.

Crack down on businesses underpaying their taxes

The think tank has urged Labour to tackle tax non-compliance.

Corporation tax, a tax on company profits, has become increasingly important to the Treasury’s coffers in recent years.

Over the course of the 2010s, revenue averaged 2.4% of national income, rising to 3.3% in 2025–26.

But corporation tax dodging meant 15.8% of liabilities went unpaid in 2023-24, up from just 8.8% in 2017-18.

Small businesses are mainly to blame, the IFS said, admitting that claiming the prize of missing corporation tax “would not be straightforward in practice”.

The think tank added: “More work is needed to understand why so many small companies are submitting incorrect tax returns.

“It is likely that tackling the gap would require targeted
compliance activities from HMRC, such as auditing small businesses.”

The IFS also said “more revenue could be raised from corporation tax”.

However, it did warn that, while a 1% increase would raise £4.1billion, there could be adverse consequences.

The authors wrote that investment in the UK could become “less attractive” and reduce future tax yields.

However, critics may argue that any tax hike hitting members of the public – even if targeting inheritance or council tax – will still feel like a broken promise.

What must the chancellor avoid doing?

The personal tax allowance has been frozen at £12,570 since April 2021.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced the freeze would remain until April 2026 and Labour extended it until April 2028.

Extending the freeze on personal tax thresholds including national insurance contributions would raise around £10.4billion a year from 2029-30.

But IFS economists say Reeves must not do this – and instead lift the threshold amid rising inflation.

Extending the freeze would be a breach of Labour’s manifesto pledge not to increase taxes for “working people” which includes income tax, national insurance and VAT, the IFS said.

The report’s authors also said restricting income tax relief on pension contributions would raise large sums but should be avoided.

Currently, when you put money into a pension, the income tax you’ve already paid on that money is essentially returned via a government top-up.

The IFS said restricting relief would be “unfair” to penalise pensions again when pension income is already taxed.

The Chancellor should also resist the temptation to up stamp duties, the IFS said.

The think tank fears it would cause people to avoid selling their homes when they want to – hitting the jobs market and holding back growth.

“Changing rates and thresholds is all very well, but unless the Chancellor is willing to pursue genuine reform it will be taxpayers that shoulder the cost of her neglect,” the report, which forms a chapter in the IFS’s wider budget assessment for 2025, said.

Isaac Delestre, a senior research economist at the think tank and an author of the chapter, said Ms Reeves would have “fallen short” if she reaches for quick revenue without wider reform.

“Almost any package of tax rises is likely to weigh on growth, but by tackling some of the inefficiency and unfairness in our existing tax system, the Chancellor could limit the economic damage,” he said.

ED MILIBAND is a “walking, talking cost-of-living crisis”, according to shadow Energy Secretary Claire Coutinho.

The senior MP — who will tomorrow unveil Tory plans for cheaper utilities — vowed to get her Labour arch-rival SACKED as gas and electricity costs rose again this week on his watch.

4

4

4

Experts have warned that Red Ed, who promised to cut energy bills by up to £300 a year before the 2024 General Election, will only drive prices higher with his Net Zero obsession.

Already, £1billion has been spent this year switching off wind turbines when it got too blowy for the network to cope.

Other sources, such as gas-fired plants, then had to be paid to be used as a replacement. The shutdown has pushed household bills up by £15 a year.

In an interview with the Sun on Sunday, Ms Coutinho fumed: “Ed Miliband is a disaster.

“Every decision (he) has made in government is going to send people’s bills up.

“He promised people £300 off their bills, and so far they’re already £200 up. People are rightly furious.

“I don’t know what he’s on. He is a walking, talking cost-of-living crisis.

“I’m going to make it my mission in this parliament to get him sacked.”

She continues: “I think he can’t add up because if you look at what he’s doing, gas at the moment is about £55 a megawatt-hour.

“He said he’s willing to pay up to £117 for offshore wind this year, and then he talks about cutting people’s bills. You don’t need a calculator to see that is just total madness.”

The top Tory also slated Energy Secretary Mr Miliband for “signing up to 20-year contracts” for offshore wind, adding: “We’re going to be saddled with these incredibly high prices for decades.”

Ms Coutinho is the face of the Conservative Party’s scepticism over a move to Net Zero.

At their annual conference in Manchester tomorrow, she will outline proposals to cut bills by scrapping green levies.

She said: “The most important thing the country needs — and we’re unashamed about this — is lower energy bills.

“Our priority for energy policy going forward will be simple: Make electricity cheaper.

“It will be good for growth, it’s good for cost-of-living — something we know lots of families are still struggling with — and, most importantly, it will be good for the whole of the UK to have much cheaper energy bills.”

Levies funding environmental and social projects add around £140 to annual electricity bills and £50 to gas bills, says innovation agency Nesta.

It comes as the UK energy price cap rose again this week by two per cent, meaning the average household paying for gas and electricity by direct debit will see costs increase from £1,720 to £1,755 per year.

Ms Coutinho’s stance marks a much harder line on eco-policies as the Tories try to stave off Nigel Farage’s party.

Reform UK promised to scrap the Net Zero target and told wind and solar developers they will end green energy subsidies if they win power.

It has prompted Mr Miliband to liken the Tories to a “Reform tribute act”.

But Ms Coutinho said: “That’s absolute rubbish, If you look at Reform, they’ve got the economics of Jeremy Corbyn.”

She claimed there was a huge black hole in Reform’s spending plans, adding: “That simply isn’t going to work for a country where you’ve got interest rates high, inflation is high. We need to be bringing those things down. So we need to live within our means.”

Tories have pledged to scrap the restrictive Climate Change Act 2008 brought in by the last Labour government, and the target of Net Zero emissions by 2050 enshrined by Tory PM Theresa May in 2019.

Ms Coutinho said: “We’ve got new leadership now and both Kemi and I strongly feel that the biggest problem that this country faces is that we’ve got the highest industrial electricity prices in the world and the second highest domestic prices. Now that’s just not going to work for Britain.”

Tories would also abolish quango the Climate Change Committee, which advises the Government on Net Zero.

Ms Coutinho said: “For too long, energy policy has been in the hands of people who are unelected and unaccountable — and that’s just not right.”

And she has left the door open to fracking.

A ban was lifted by Liz Truss during her short tenure in Downing Street – but this was abandoned by her successor Rishi Sunak.

Ms Coutinho added: “We’re a small dense island and it can be very disruptive. So it shouldn’t be done to communities without their say so.”

The shadow cabinet member admitted people are frustrated the Tories have taken their time to come up with policies after their disastrous loss at last year’s General Election.

But she insisted: “At conference, you’ll see a lot more from us. This is the moment where we’ll start telling people all the results of our work, and be able to explain what our plan is.

“The difference between us and Labour and Reform is our plans are real, they’re fully funded, they can be delivered tomorrow.”

She promised the Tories will bring forward plans the public can trust, adding: “People have really lost faith in government to be able to do the things that they want it to do. So we need to rebuild that trust.”

4

1996. Wembley Stadium. I’m standing in a sea of England flags and fans, watching the Euros semi-final. As the crowd roars with one voice, it’s electric. Football’s coming home.

3

It didn’t of course. But that day, England stood shoulder to shoulder. Beyond the stadium, across the entire country, we shared the highs and lows together.

Being there felt like we were part of something larger than ourselves. An England that belonged to our grandparents and our history, but also to our children and our future. And I felt like I was part of it.

That’s the power of our flag. To make us all feel like part of Team England.

Win or lose, north or south, black or white, old or young. Even Spurs and Arsenal were on the same team that day, cheering on our country.

So I know what a source of pride our flag can be, and what it means to people.

Which is makes it all the more shameful when people exploit that symbol to stoke anger and division.

I know people feel angry that the country they love doesn’t seem to work for them.

3

People who feel like they’re doing everything right, but getting nothing to show for it.

Working harder and harder just to stand still, and worried what the future will look like for their kids.

I share that frustration. I’m determined to fix it. But a small minority see instead an opportunity to whip up hatred. To follow and old and dangerous playbook that sets people against one another.

That’s what we’ve seen in parts of the country. Police officers assaulted.

Loutish behaviour on the streets. And people made to feel like they are not welcome or safe here because of their heritage, religion or colour of their skin.

We’ve seen a nine year old black girl shot at in a racist attack. Chinese takeaways defaced. That sends a shiver down the spine of every right-minded Brit. This is not who we are.

When populist politicians, convicted criminals, and foreign billionaires take to the stage to encourage violence, make racist comments, and threaten our democracy, it casts a dark shadow of fear and violence across our society.

They want to drag our country down into a toxic spiral of division and hatred because it’s good for them. But their vile lies are not good for the country.

Here’s the truth. Over the past 15 years, trust in politics has been eroded. the economy became weaker and weaker. Opportunities disappeared as libraries, leisure centres, community spaces shut down during austerity.

Public services like our NHS neglected, neighbourhoods looking more and more tired as high streets shuttered up, anti-social behaviour blighting people’s lives.

Working people were left to scrap over fewer and fewer crumbs.

Now we’re at a crossroads. There is a dark path ahead of division and decline, toxicity and fear.

3

A path that relies on destruction and disappointment, because when the damage is done and the graffiti cleaned away, it’s clear the populists  never had anything to offer – no hope, no future, no answers.

Or, there is the patriotic path of national renewal. Every one of us playing our part to renew, restore, rebuild the country we love.

That is the path we choose. 

Because this government is taking responsibility to reverse the decline.

We’re growing our economy so there’s more to go round for everyone, with 5 cuts in interest rates saving families up to £1,000 on their mortgage each year.

We’re building 1.5 million new homes, new towns, hospitals and schools and improving transport across the country. We’re delivering 5.2 million extra NHS appointments.

And we’re saving families £7,500 a year on childcare, giving hard working parents more cash and more time.

Of course we need to deal with the issues the country faces, like illegal immigration, head on.

But the way to be proud of our country again is to be part of the renewal, not the destruction. This is a struggle for the heart and soul of our nation.

But it’s not between ordinary people who simply want a better life for their families. It’s between patriots who care about our country, and populists who only care about themselves.

They want to control a current of tension and fear. I want the electricity I felt in that stadium almost thirty years ago, of a defiant Britain, a nation of decency and diversity, that still dares to stand together and believe in better.

Because this is the country that stood tall – with our allies – against the forces of fascism 80 years ago.

This is who we are. We’ve got the match of our lives ahead. And we need you on the pitch.

A ROW erupted over the Tories’ record in power at a lavish event for allies of Donald Trump.

Ex-PM Boris Johnson “robustly defended” his time at No 10 during a debate on right-wing politics.

Words were exchanged after champagne and canapes at Tuesday night’s do, also attended by former PM Liz Truss and ex-ministers.

Mr Johnson came out fighting after a forceful intervention from broadcaster Andrew Neil, who questioned why the Tories did not do more to curb migration and boost defence spending.

A witness at the Peninsula Hotel in Mayfair, central London, said: “At that point Boris robustly defended his government’s record.

“Boris argued that Brexit gives us powers to reduce immigration if we wish and said he did reduce it.

“He also said we shouldn’t bash the contribution migrants make to Britain.”

Last month Boris was seen sporting a new bearded look in photos shared on Instagram by wife Carrie.

The couple were seen holidaying on the Greek island of Euboea with children Wilfred, 5, Romy, 3, Frank, 2, and baby Poppy.

The heartwarming images of the family holiday were captioned: “Our favourite place GR.”

1

HOUSEHOLDS across the country are being warned to brace for a financial squeeze as the cost of government borrowing skyrockets to levels not seen since 1998.

This now directly threatens to push up mortgage rates and could usher in a new wave of tax hikes.

1

The pound has tumbled in response to the growing unease, highlighting investor concern over the UK’s economic stability. 

At the heart of the issue are government bonds, known as “gilts,” which the government issues to borrow money.

These bonds offer investors a return, referred to as the “yield.”

In recent weeks, gilt yields have been rising rapidly, making it more expensive for the government to borrow.

This morning, yields soared further, with 30-year gilts reaching 5.72% – the highest level in nearly 30 years – while 10-year gilts climbed to 4.85%.

This spike signals that investors are nervous.

They are demanding a higher return to lend to the UK, worried about stubborn inflation and a gaping £51billion hole in the nation’s finances.

The rise in government borrowing costs is putting serious pressure on household budgets in two key ways

Firstly, it’s driving up mortgage rates.

The link between government gilt yields and mortgage rates is direct and unavoidable.

Lenders use “swap rates,” which closely track gilt yields, to set the prices of fixed-rate mortgage deals.

As these rates climb, fixed mortgages become more expensive.

Since August 1, two-year swaps have risen from 3.56% to 3.74%, while five-year swaps have gone from 3.63% to 3.83%.

Major lenders like Barclays have already started increasing rates, and even a small rise can add significantly to monthly payments on a typical £200,000 mortgage.

With swap rates continuing to rise in recent weeks, experts warn that mortgage rates are likely to increase further.

Separately, Chancellor Rachel Reeves faces a difficult challenge in her Autumn Budget, scheduled for November.

Higher borrowing costs are eating into public funds, and many economists believe tax increases will be necessary to fill the financial gap.

Although the government has promised not to raise income tax, national insurance, or VAT for “working people,” other tax measures are reportedly being considered.

One proposal is applying National Insurance to rental income, which critics fear could result in landlords passing on the cost to tenants through higher rents.

Another idea being debated is replacing stamp duty with an annual property tax, which could affect homeowners.

There are also rumours of reducing pension tax relief or cutting the tax-free lump sum, moves that could generate billions but might hurt savers.

Plus, there’s speculation about lowering the VAT threshold, which would bring more small businesses into the tax system.

This could increase their costs and potentially lead to higher prices for consumers.

Reeves is expected to make economic growth the centrepiece of her next Budget, warning that Britain’s economy is “stuck” and in need of bold solutions.

What can you do about it?

None of the proposed changes have been confirmed yet, and the government hasn’t ruled them out either.

However, any new measures won’t take effect until after the Budget in November.

It’s important not to make rash decisions based on speculation.

If changes are announced, you’ll have time to act and protect your finances before they come into effect.

For instance, if stamp duty is replaced by an annual property tax from a certain date, you could move house before the deadline to avoid the extra cost.

Similarly, if the government introduces capital gains tax on high-value properties, you might consider downsizing to a smaller home before the change is implemented.

 Rob Morgan, chief analyst at Charles Stanley, said: “Taking pre-emptive action can outright backfire.

“Last year some people were concerned about restrictions around taking tax free cash from pension and took withdrawals they wouldn’t have otherwise made.

“This removed the money from a tax-efficient environment and potentially stored up tax issues that will come back to haunt them.

“Instead, it’s best to wait to see what happens, consider the consequences, and take advice as required before acting.”

Most of the proposed measures are likely to affect only the very wealthy, so you may not be impacted at all.

If you’re concerned, there are steps you can take to prepare and safeguard your finances.

Check your financial health

If you are worried about your finances then you should speak to a financial adviser.

They will be able to offer you advice about your situation and explain if any of the measures will affect you.

You can find one using unbiased.co.uk – but remember, you will pay a fee.

It’s good practice to sit down and take stock of your finances every six months and work out a plan.

Work out all your bills and outgoings and what income you have and factor in any changes, such as bills going up or new income streams.

Think about what you need to do to make the most of your money. For example, do you need to prioritise paying off debts or saving for a house deposit.

Our guide to paying less tax legally could help you avoid giving away more cash to the tax man than necessary.

Review your mortgage deal

If your mortgage deal is coming to an end soon, act now.

Locking in a fixed rate could shield you from rising rates and market uncertainty.

Aaron Strutt, of mortgage broker Trinity Financial, said “For the moment there have not been significant price hikes but it’s probably worth locking in a mortgage rate if you are buying somewhere or due to remortgage, to try and keep away from any market turbulence.”

If you are coming to the end of a fixed deal, most lenders let you lock in a new rate up to six months beforehand, which can be worth doing.

If rates fall after you agree a new deal, some lenders will let you sign a new one at a lower rate.

Think when investing

Gold prices surged to a record high of $3,546.99 per ounce (£2,643.82) on Wednesday, marking its seventh consecutive daily rise.

Investors are flocking to the precious metal as a safe haven amid inflation fears and fiscal uncertainty.

However, financial advisers suggest maintaining a balanced and diverse investment portfolio as a better strategy for managing market volatility.

A small allocation to gold (5-10%) can be useful, but it shouldn’t be the core of your investment plan, according to Charles Stanley.

Don’t forget a will

If you’re concerned about potential changes to inheritance tax, it’s essential to have a will in place.

Without a will, your estate will be subject to intestacy rules, which could result in a higher inheritance tax bill.

This is especially important for unmarried couples, as they won’t automatically inherit from each other, even if they’ve lived together for years.

Check how to make one in our guide.

Make your savings work harder

More than 31million bank customers have £186billion in savings accounts earning just 1.5% interest, according to banking app Spring.

These accounts generate £2.3billion a year in interest, but savers could earn over three times more by switching to accounts offering up to 5% interest, The Sun can reveal.

The average bank customer has around £10,000 in savings, according to Raisin.

If that £10,000 is kept in an easy access account earning 1.5% interest, it would generate just £150 in interest each year.

But switching to Cahoot’s 5% easy access account would boost that to £500, earning you an extra £350.

If your savings account pays less than the current inflation rate of 3.8%, it’s time to look for a better deal.

REFORM UK would win a 400 seat landslide if an election were held today, according to a new poll.

Nigel Farage is 15 points ahead of Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour Government, as reported by The i Paper.

7

7

7

Only 20 per cent of voters now say they would vote for Labour – whereas 35 per cent would cast their ballot for Reform.

The poll results mean Farage would win a general election with 400 seats if one was held today.

These figures have been dubbed as “catastrophic” for the PM’s party, as they continue to face backlash over the migrant crisis.

This issue was also reflected in the poll, with 41 per cent of applicants confessing they believe Farage could solve the problem – as opposed to 14 per cent who trust Starmer.

Meanwhile the Tories also trailed behind in the poll, with Kemi Badenoch only gaining 17 per cent of votes.

And, her party ranked last when it came to faith in battling the small boat crisis – with just 8 per cent admitting they believe she could put an end to it.

The poll was conducted this week, as Farage continues to unveil mass deportation plans.

It turns out nearly 40 per cent of Brits thought his ideas were possible.

The Reform UK leader vowed to deport 600,000 illegal migrants in his first term in office – in a crackdown he claims will save taxpayers billions.

The party boss said the public mood over Channel crossings was “a mix between total despair and rising anger”, warning of a “genuine threat to public order” unless Britain acts fast.

Reform’s plan centres on a new Illegal Migration (Mass Deportation) Bill, which would make it the Home Secretary’s legal duty to remove anyone who arrives unlawfully, and strip courts and judges of the power to block flights. 

Britain would quit the European Convention on Human Rights, scrap the Human Rights Act and suspend the Refugee Convention for five years.

Reform would also make re-entry after deportation a crime carrying up to five years in jail, enforce a lifetime ban on returning, and make tearing up ID papers punishable by the same penalty.

The scheme would also see prefab detention camps built on surplus RAF and MoD land, holding up to 24,000 people within 18 months. 

Inmates would be housed in two-man blocks with food halls and medical suites – and would not be allowed out.

Five deportation flights would take off every day, with RAF planes on standby if charter jets were blocked.

The poll this week echos those conducted by YouGov, in which Reform was still 8 points ahead of Labour.

And, 37 per cent of voters say they are satisfied with how Farage is leading the party.

However, 60 per cent are unhappy with Sir Keir Starmer’s performance.

Robert Struthers, head of polling at BMG, said: “Nigel Farage’s net rating of +5 may not appear remarkable on its own, but it contrasts sharply with Keir Starmer’s figures which have dropped to a new low at -41. He’s now as unpopular as Sunak was before the election last year.

“The next election may still be some way off, but there’s no doubt these numbers are catastrophic for Labour. Unless things change, pressure for a shift in strategy and even Prime Minister will only intensify.”

Jack Curry, pollster at BMG added: “There is a striking consensus among the British public when it comes to the issue of small boats. The public sees no real difference between the current Labour Government and the previous Conservative government. Both are viewed as equally ineffective.

“That frustration is clearly fuelling support for Reform. When it comes to what people actually want done, the mood music is for a tougher approach. There’s strong support for protectionist measures like more border enforcement, stricter penalties and offshore processing. That’s especially true among Reform and Conservative voters.”

It comes as a ruling to boot migrants out of an Epping hotel was overturned by the Court of Appeal on Friday.

The Bell Hotel, in Essex, has been surrounded by controversy after two of its guests were charged with sexual offences.

Epping Forest District Council last week won a bid at the High Court to block migrants from being housed at the hotel.

The temporary injunction meant that the building had to be cleared of its occupants by September 12.

It also caused a ripple effect across the UK as more councils launched their own bids to boot migrants out of hotels in their towns.

But the Court of Appeal on Friday overturned the injunction following an appeal by the Home Office and hotel owners Somani – meaning the migrants can stay where they are for now.

It also gave permission for the Home Office to appeal against Mr Justice Eyre’s ruling not to let it intervene in the case as their involvement was “not necessary”.

It came after Home Secretary Yvette Cooper made a last-ditch bid to join the battle.

But, more than a dozen councils are still poised to take legal action to shut asylum hotels.

These include at least four Labour-run authorities, such as Wirral, Stevenage, Tamworth and Rushmoor councils.

A full hearing is scheduled for October to conclude whether the council’s claim that the use of the Bell Hotel to house asylum seekers breached planning rules.

7

7

7

7

Sunak’s appointment comes after resigning from the PM role last year after a loss to Keir Starmer’s Labour Party

Goldman Sachs has named former United Kingdom Prime Minister Rishi Sunak as a senior adviser, adding a veteran policymaker to its roster as banks navigate rising geopolitical and regulatory uncertainty.

The investment bank announced Sunak’s appointment on Tuesday.

Sunak, who remains a Conservative member of parliament from a seat in northern England, previously worked at Goldman as an analyst in the early 2000s before joining a series of hedge funds.

Through a combination of his past career in financial services and the family wealth of his wife, whose father co-founded the Indian IT services company Infosys, Sunak became the wealthiest British prime minister, drawing criticism of being out of touch with most UK voters.

He has remained largely out of the spotlight since resigning as leader of the Conservatives after the party’s worst defeat in more than a century in July last year. He took up posts at Oxford and Stanford universities earlier this year.

Goldman’s hiring of Sunak, who had also served as the UK’s finance minister, adds to a long list of senior politicians taking up positions in finance, where their policy backgrounds and global networks are viewed as strategic assets.

“I am excited to welcome Rishi back to Goldman Sachs,” Goldman CEO David Solomon said in a statement. “In his role, he will work with leaders across the firm to advise our clients globally on a range of important topics, sharing his unique perspectives and insights on the macroeconomic and geopolitical landscape,” Solomon said.

Former British finance ministers George Osborne and Sajid Javid have also made the move to finance with Osborne holding positions at asset manager BlackRock and advisory firm Robey Warshaw and Javid becoming a partner at investment firm Centricus.

AS KING Canute found over a thousand years ago, it is quite difficult to stand on a beach and order the tide to recede. 

Today, it is equally difficult to make the argument that giving families cash is not always the best way of lifting them out of poverty. 

2

This is especially true when one particular measure becomes the symbol of whether or not you’re on the right side of the debate about child poverty.

But as someone who now can afford the comforts of life, I constantly remind myself of my childhood.

The grinding poverty that I experienced when my father was killed
in a work accident when I was 12 – leaving my mother, who had serious health problems, to fight a long battle for minimal compensation.

Having only bread and dripping in the house was, by anyone’s standards, a hallmark of absolute poverty.

Why on earth would I question, therefore, the morality of reversing a Tory policy introduced eight years ago?

This restricts the additional supplement to universal credit – worth over £3,000 a child per year – to just two children. 

I should know, my friends tell me, that the easiest and quickest way of overcoming the growth in child poverty is to restore the £3.5 billion pounds it would cost to give this additional money for all the children in every family entitled to the credit.

It is true that the policy, introduced in 2017, failed its first test.

Women did not stop having more than two children even when they were strapped for cash. It is still unclear why. 

After all, many people have to make a calculation as to how many children they can afford.

2

But one thing must be certain: namely, that if you give parents a relatively substantial additional amount of money for every child they have whilst entitled to benefits, they are likely to have more children.

Nigel Farage, leader of Reform UK, said as much last week. His argument for restoring the benefit to the third and subsequent children was precisely that we needed to persuade low- income families to have more children.

Surely having children that you cannot afford to feed is the legacy of a bygone era?

All those earning below £60,000 are entitled to the basic child benefit, so the argument is about just over £60 a week extra per child.

One difficulty in having a sensible debate about what really works in overcoming intergenerational poverty is the lack of reliable statistics.

Some people have claimed, over recent days, that over 50 per cent of children in Manchester and Birmingham live in poverty. 

I fear that such claims should be treated with scepticism.

Those struggling to make ends meet – sometimes having not just one but two jobs – who pay their taxes and national insurance and plan their lives around what can be afforded, have the right to question where their hard-earned wages go.

The simple and obvious truth is that child poverty springs from the lack of income of the adults who care for them.

Transforming their lives impacts directly on the children in their family.

There is a limit to how much money taxpayers are willing to hand over to pay for another family’s children. 

Helping them to help themselves is a different matter.

So, what would I do?

Firstly, I would ensure that families with a disabled youngster automatically have the entitlement restored.

This would self-evidently apply also to multiple births. 

In both cases, life is not only more difficult, it is also harder to get and keep a job.

I would come down like a ton of bricks on absent parents.

My mum was a single parent because she was widowed; many others are single in the sense that the other partner has walked away.

The Child Maintenance Service should step up efforts to identify and pursue absent parents who do not pay their fair share towards their child. 

We, the community, have a clear duty to support and assist those in need.

To help those where a helping hand will restore them to independence and self-reliance.

But there is an obligation on individuals as well as the State, and mutual help starts with individuals taking some responsibility for themselves.

Finally, if (and this is where I am in full agreement with colleagues campaigning to dramatically reduce child poverty) we make substantial sums of money available to overcome hardship, then a comprehensive approach to supporting the families must surely be the best way to achieve this.

As ever in politics there is a trade off. What you spend on handing over cash is not available to invest in public services: that is the reality.

Help from the moment a child is born, not just with childcare but with nurturing and child development.

Dedicated backing to gain skills and employment and to taper the
withdrawal of help so that it genuinely becomes worthwhile having and keeping a job. 

A contract between the taxpayer and the individual or household.
Government is about difficult choices, that is why Keir Starmer and his colleagues are agonising over what to do next.

BRITAIN is “secretly” preparing for outright war with Russia, it is claimed.

Government officials are reportedly being ordered to update decades old contingency plans amid fears the nation is not ready for a potential attack from the Kremlin.

3

3

3

The classified “home defence plan” would lay out how Downing Street will respond if Vladimir Putin declares war on the UK, including putting the Royal Family into bunkers.

Ministers worry Britain could be outfought by Russia on the battlefield, but also poorly defended at home as things stand.

Experts have warned the country’s national infrastructure is vulnerable ahead of the release of Labour’s Strategic Defence Review – an examination of the Armed Forces.

It comes as the former Soviet nation continues to threaten the UK over its support for Ukraine – and ministers last month officially designated it a national security threat for the first time.

The ongoing conflict, which began with a Russian invasion in February 2022, could soon see British troops deployed on the frontlines.

The classified plan by the Cabinet Office’s Resilience Directorate – which was last updated in 2005 – would set out a strategy for the days immediately after a strike on British shores, including from nuclear warheads.

For the first time, it’s understood the document – unlikely to ever be released to the public – will address cyber warfare.

It will also direct PM Sir Keir Starmer on how to run a wartime government, as well as strategies for travel networks, courts and the postal system, reports the Daily Telegraph.

The Cabinet Office ran a risk assessment in January in which it modelled a scenario in which a hostile foreign state launched various types of attack on the UK’s infrastructure.

It found any such successful strike could be devastating.

Meanwhile, defence officials have warned Britain must develop its own version of Israel‘s Iron Dome to protect against missiles.

A senior RAF official said last month if Russia had attacked the UK in the same way as it had Ukraine more than three years ago – within hours missiles would have broken through defences and destroyed key targets.

There is particular concern for the country’s five active nuclear power stations, which if damaged by strikes could release radioactive material across the country, resulting in long-term impact, according to the assessment.

The plan is based on the War Book, a Cold War dossier of instructions for government response to nuclear attacks.

Under such plans, Britain could be divided into 12 zones, each governed by Cabinet ministers, and food rationed.

A Government spokesman said: “The UK has robust plans in place for a range of potential emergencies that have been developed and tested over many years.”

The Sun has approached the Ministry of Defence for comment.