Reeves’ pubs U-turn: how business rates sparked a revolt, and why ministers are now under fire

15 January 2026

Paul Francis

Want your article or story on our site? Contact us here

Rachel Reeves is preparing a U-turn on business rates for pubs after an unusually public backlash from landlords, trade bodies, and even some Labour MPs. In recent days, pubs across the country have reportedly refused service to, or outright barred, Labour MPs in protest, turning a technical tax change into a political flashpoint about competence, consultation, and whether the government understood its own numbers.

Two pints of frothy beer on a wooden ledge, reflecting on a window. Warm, dim lighting creates a cozy atmosphere.

The row centres on business rates, the property-based tax paid on most non-domestic premises. For pubs, it is often one of the highest fixed costs after staffing and energy. And while the government has argued its reforms were meant to make the system fairer for high street businesses, many publicans say the real world impact is the opposite: higher bills arriving at the same time as wage costs and other overheads are already rising.

What changed and why pubs reacted so fiercely

The immediate trigger was the November Budget package, which set out changes tied to the 2026 business rates revaluation and the planned move away from pandemic era relief. As the details landed, hospitality groups warned that many pubs would be hit by sharp rises because their rateable values, the Valuation Office Agency’s estimate of a property’s annual rental value, had increased significantly at revaluation.

A Reuters report published on 8 January 2026 described the government preparing measures to “soften the impact” of the planned hike after industry warnings that closures would follow. It also noted trade body concerns about elevated rateable values and warned that thousands of smaller pubs could face a bill for the first time.

The anger quickly became visible. ITV News reported on pub owners in Dorset who began banning Labour MPs after the Budget, with the campaign spreading as other pubs joined in. LabourList also reported that more than 1,000 pubs had banned Labour MPs from their premises in protest. Sky News similarly reported that pubs had been banning Labour MPs over the rises due to begin in April.

How business rates are actually calculated, with pub-friendly examples

Business rates can sound opaque, but the calculation is straightforward in principle:

Business rates bill = Rateable value x Multiplier, minus any reliefs

Where it became combustible for pubs is that multiple moving parts changed at once: revaluation shifted rateable values, multipliers were adjusted for different sectors, and pandemic era relief was being reduced or removed.

The government’s own Budget factsheet includes worked examples that show why bills can jump even when headline multipliers look lower.

Example 1: a pub whose rateable value rises modestly: In 2025/26, a pub with a £30,000 rateable value used a multiplier of 49.9p and then deducted 40% retail, hospitality and leisure relief. The factsheet sets out the steps: £30,000 x 0.499 = £14,970, then 40% relief reduces that to a final bill of £8,982. After revaluation, the rateable value rises to £39,000. The pub qualifies for a lower small business multiplier of 38.2p, so before reliefs: £39,000 x 0.382 = £14,898. Transitional support caps the increase, resulting in a final bill of £10,329.

Even here, the bill rises. The cap stops it from rising as sharply as it otherwise would, but it still climbs.

Example 2: a pub whose rateable value more than doubles: In the most politically explosive scenario, the factsheet describes a pub whose rateable value rises from £50,000 to £110,000 at revaluation. In 2025/26, the bill is calculated as £50,000 x 0.499 = £24,950, then reduced by 40% relief to £14,970. In 2026/27, before any relief, the bill would be £110,000 x 0.43 = £47,300. Transitional support then caps the increase, producing a final bill of £19,461.

That is still a meaningful jump in a single year, even with protections. For pubs operating on thin margins, that scale of increase can mean the difference between staying open and closing.

This is why so many publicans argue that the political messaging did not match the lived reality. They were told reforms would support the high street, then saw calculations that delivered higher costs.

What Reeves is now doing to correct it

The government has not published the full final package yet, but multiple reports describe a targeted climbdown.

Reuters reported that a support package would be outlined in the coming days and that it would include measures addressing business rates, alongside licensing and deregulation. LabourList reported that Treasury officials were expected to reduce the percentage of a pub’s rateable value used to calculate business rates and introduce a transitional relief fund. The Independent reported ministers briefing that Reeves was expected to extend some form of relief rather than scrap support entirely from April, after pressure from Labour MPs and the sector.

In practical terms, “softening” the rise can be done in a few ways:

Increasing or extending pub-specific relief so bills do not jump as sharply in April 2026
Adjusting the multiplier applied to pubs within the retail, hospitality and leisure category
Strengthening transitional relief so the cap on year to year increases is tighter
Supplementary measures like licensing changes, to reduce other cost pressures

The direction of travel is clear: the Treasury is trying to stop the revaluation shock from landing all at once on pubs.

The critics’ argument: ministers did not do their homework

The most damaging strand of this story is not the U turn itself, but the allegation that ministers did not understand the impact at the point of announcement.

Sky News has reported internal disquiet about the business rates increase, reflecting wider unease about the political cost of the policy. ITV has also reported pub owners arguing that the “devil is in the detail,” a polite way of saying the announcement did not match the numbers that followed.

Most seriously, reporting summarised from The Times states that Business Secretary Peter Kyle acknowledged ministers did not have key details about the revaluation’s effects on hospitality at the time of the November Budget, and that the property specific revaluations created an unexpected burden for some pubs.

That admission fuels the criticism that this was not simply a policy misfire, but a failure of preparation. The core accusation from critics is straightforward: if the government is reshaping a tax system built on property values, then the people in charge should have had a clear grasp of what the valuation changes would do to real businesses. If they did not, they were not doing the job properly.

Even if ministers argue the valuation process is independent, the political reality is that pubs heard one message, then saw another outcome. The result has been a crisis of trust that a late rescue package may soften, but not erase.

What this episode tells us about tax policy and trust

Pubs are not just businesses. They are community anchors and cultural institutions, which is why this backlash travelled so quickly from accountancy jargon to front-page politics.

Reeves’ U turn may yet prevent the worst outcomes for some pubs. But the episode has exposed a deeper vulnerability: when the government announces complex reforms without convincing evidence, it understands the knock on effects, and the backlash is not only economic. It becomes personal, symbolic, and politically contagious.

If the Treasury wants to draw a line under this, it will need to do more than patch the numbers. It will need to convince the public and the businesses affected that decisions are being made with full visibility of the consequences, not discovered after the revolt begins.

Current Most Read

When AI Crosses the Line: Why the Grok Controversy Has Triggered a Regulatory Reckoning

A World on Edge: Why Global Tensions Are Rising and What History Can Tell Us

Elon Musk’s Controversial Salute and Trump’s Inauguration: A Polarising Start

Connor Banks
Jan 21, 2025
3 min read

Donald Trump’s inauguration as the 47th President of the United States was marked by sweeping executive actions and a controversial appearance by billionaire Elon Musk, whose gestures at the event have sparked widespread backlash.

A Contentious Start to Trump’s Presidency

Hours after being sworn in, President Trump announced a raft of executive orders aimed at undoing key policies of his predecessor, Joe Biden. Addressing supporters at an indoor parade event in Washington, D.C., Trump promised to reverse “80 destructive and radical executive actions” from the previous administration.

Among his first actions, Trump issued pardons to approximately 1,500 individuals charged in connection with the 6 January 2021 Capitol riot. This included shortening sentences for 14 members of far-right groups such as the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, some of whom had been convicted of seditious conspiracy. Trump also declared illegal immigration at the US-Mexico border a national emergency, reinstated policies barring citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants, and designated drug cartels as terrorist organisations.

On the international front, Trump announced the withdrawal of the US from the Paris Climate Agreement, citing concerns about the nation’s energy independence. He further ordered the repeal of a Biden-era memo barring oil drilling in the Arctic and began the process of withdrawing the US from the World Health Organisation, criticising the agency’s financial demands on the US compared to China.

AI image of Elon Musk and Donald Trump shaking hands. — Image generated by Leonardo AI

Elon Musk’s Controversial Salutes

The inauguration also drew headlines due to the actions of Elon Musk, the billionaire owner of Tesla, SpaceX, and the social media platform X. Musk, a prominent Trump supporter and donor, appeared onstage before Trump’s address and delivered remarks praising the audience for their contributions to the administration’s victory.

During his speech, Musk made a gesture that has been widely criticised. He placed his right hand over his chest before extending it outward in a motion many likened to a Nazi salute. “My heart goes out to you,” Musk told the crowd. “It is thanks to you that the future of civilisation is assured.” He repeated the gesture moments later, prompting a storm of reactions on social media.

Historians and advocacy groups were quick to condemn Musk’s actions. Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a historian of fascism, described the motion as a “Nazi salute” and “a very belligerent one too.” The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) issued a statement calling the gesture “awkward” and advising restraint, though critics, including Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, accused the organisation of minimising the incident.

Musk responded on X, dismissing the controversy. “Frankly, they need better dirty tricks. The ‘everyone is Hitler’ attack is sooo tired,” he posted, adding a yawning emoji. He also reposted memes mocking the backlash, further fuelling the debate.

A Polarised Reaction

Supporters of Musk and Trump dismissed the outrage as overblown. “Can we please retire the calling people a Nazi thing?” one user wrote on X. Far-right groups, however, appeared to embrace Musk’s actions. Neo-Nazi leader Christopher Pohlhaus celebrated the gestures, stating, “I don’t care if this was a mistake. I’m going to enjoy the tears over it.”

Musk’s appearance added to the already divisive atmosphere surrounding Trump’s return to power. For many, it symbolised a normalisation of far-right rhetoric at the highest levels of influence, while others viewed it as a distraction from Trump’s ambitious policy agenda.

Trump’s inauguration has set the stage for a presidency marked by aggressive policy reversals and deeply polarising optics. Musk’s controversial gestures underscore the fraught political landscape, where symbolism and ideology often overshadow substantive debate. As the administration moves forward, the tension between unity and division will remain a central theme in American politics.