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

Sex Education Season 4: A Journey into Complex Identities

Gregory Devine
Oct 16, 2023
3 min read

Netflix’s Sex Education Season 4 Might Be Its Most Important Season Yet

Advertising wall for Netflix's Sex Education program. — Original photo by Zorro2212

Season 4 of the popular comedy-drama 'Sex Education' is out. It's a show I love, mostly due to just how relatable it is. While previous seasons have explored the trials and tribulations of puberty in high school, this season tackles the challenges of college students.

It's a weird time when you're 17. You're given much more independence than before, and you have the chance to learn to drive a car, yet you're not an adult yet. It's a time when you are truly starting to understand who you are. The show doesn't hide this at all. There are people going through all different kinds of identity understanding, whether that's who they are sexually attracted to or what gender they believe they are. This will be quite jarring for some viewers. This season is very 'woke,' but that's been done on purpose. While the show isn't literal sex education, it is produced in a way where you're supposed to learn from the characters and apply it to your own life.

Having nearly no straight characters in college won't be everyone's cup of tea, but this isn't trying to be a realistic portrayal of college. The point is to learn and understand more about gender beliefs by showing the many different forms they come in. The season particularly focused on people who have transitioned sexes or are still in that transitioning phase. For example, I had no idea of the aftereffects of taking testosterone for the first time or how hard and expensive it is to have top surgery. More and more people are questioning their own identities; it's not something that is going to go away, so no matter what your opinion, it's important to at least try to understand how difficult it can be for people.

Perhaps my favourite part of the season surrounds Jackson Marchetti. His character has lesbian parents. While he has always been a big part of the show, they've never really delved deeper into what having gay parents can be like. In the show, he discovers a lump on his testes. When he goes to the doctor, he's asked questions about his family history and if there's any illness that runs through the family. This makes him start to question where he comes from and who his biological father is. I personally went through the same thing. I have lesbian parents and also started to question who my biological father was after finding a lump. He's unsure what to say to his moms. You don't want to upset them, obviously, but he also wants answers on who he is and where he comes from.

While Jackson's part was very interesting, the show didn't go as deep as I would've liked them to. In the show, it turns out he isn't a child of IVF treatment, but instead, his biological mother was having an affair, and that's how she fell pregnant with Jackson. For me, this is incredibly lazy from the producers. They didn't truly explore how children can find their biological father. There are charities that will help you to find your father, but there is one big issue with this. If you were born in 2001 or before, you cannot find your father. Back then, donors were protected by law, meaning their identity must be kept a secret. All I will ever know about my sperm donor is that he was a university student studying maths at Manchester. That's it, and the law won't change that. I personally have come to terms with this and don't really care about it, but for a show targeted at teenagers, I think they would've caused someone in my position more issues than answers.

This season is meant to be the last of the show and, in truth, is a great way to end it. I'm not sure what else they could really do to continue the series without it starting to feel stale. Most of the issues the characters faced have now been resolved or brought to a stage where there aren't any glaring questions that need answering. You can keep your Breaking Bad; Sex Education is Netflix's greatest show.