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

The Cost of Watching the Premier League in the UK

Gregory Devine
Nov 8, 2023
3 min read

If there’s one thing Britain does well, it's sport. Most of the world's most popular sports were created in Britain. We have such a rich sporting history that we really should be proud of yet watching sport is so expensive. I’m not just talking about going to the stadium but also watching on the TV.

The Premier League is the world's best domestic football league. The standard is out of this world. Even smaller teams like Luton Town have some brilliant players and have more than held themselves in the league. But watching the Premier League is far too expensive. Football was always a game for the working class yet they’re being priced out of watching their team whether that be in person or at home. To legally watch Premier League football at home you’d need not one but two broadcast packages. Most of the games are on Sky Sports but some are also on TNT Sport (previously known as BT Sport). Sky Sports starts at £37 per month, a truly ridiculous amount of money. The price of TNT Sport depends. If you have BT Broadband it's £18 per month on top of your package for everyone else it's usually £29.99 but Sky and Virgin can change the price should they wish. That means you’d be paying essentially £67 to legally watch the premier league games available in the UK. There’s also the odd Amazon Prime week where all midweek fixtures are shown on Amazon instead, that’s another £8.99pm to factor in.

That price shows no value for money and really does “take the mickey” out of UK football fans. For that amount of money, you’d at minimum expect to be able to watch every game but that’s not the case. When football was first being televised fans and clubs were sceptical. There were worries it would cause attendance at games to drop. A law was passed to counteract the potential of falling attendance due to televised games. Any game on a Saturday that kicks off at 3 pm cannot be shown legally in the UK. Other countries can watch the game, however, through whichever broadcaster provides it in that country.

There’s no wonder so many people turn to illegally streaming Premier League football. The “dodgy” fire stick has become a very common occurrence. Whilst I don’t own one myself I do know plenty of people that do. When you can pay the same amount for a yearly subscription on these cracked fire sticks as you would do monthly to do it legally then why would you spend so much extra money? Whilst illegally streaming games is definitely against the law there is another way to watch the Premier League that is more of a grey area than against the law. Other countries' streaming services offer prices that are much better value for money.

Over in the US the streaming service ‘Peacock’ shows most premier league games. At around $6 a month, this is a very cheap streaming service, especially when compared to other platforms like Netflix. Whilst you can’t buy a peacock subscription in the UK there is a way to legally purchase Peacock. You can use a VPN (virtual private network) to make your device believe it's in a different country. Should you set your VPN to the US then you’ll be able to subscribe to Peacock and watch more premier league games than you would be able to by spending the full £67 on Sky Sports and TNT Sports. This isn’t against the law. VPNs are legal and many cyber security experts would tell you to purchase one regardless of using it to watch sports but more for online security.

There are talks the premier league may eventually move away from traditional cable operators like Sky and create its own streaming platform. With the extraordinary prices Sky and TNT charge UK customers, this really needs to happen sooner rather than later. Whilst the premier league is a fantastic, modern and innovative league, its TV broadcasters are the opposite, providing the bare minimum for as much money as possible. It doesn’t suit football. This is supposed to be a working class sport yet fans are priced out of not only the stadium but also watching it at home.