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 History of Tariffs: Economic Lessons From The Past and Their Impact Today

Connor Banks
Mar 6, 2025
4 min read

Donald Trump in a suit with red tie speaks at podium with presidential seal. Blue backdrop features "Farm Bureau" logos. He appears expressive.

Tariffs have long been a weapon wielded by those in power, wrapped in the rhetoric of "protecting national interests" while, in reality, punishing ordinary people. Now, as President Donald Trump’s latest tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China come into force, history warns us what happens next: higher prices, lost jobs, and yet another economic squeeze on working people. While corporate elites will find ways to profit, it’s ordinary families who will be left footing the bill. This article explores the long history of tariffs, their economic impact, and what we can learn from past trade wars.

What Are Tariffs and How Do They Work?

A tariff is a tax imposed on imported goods, usually intended to protect domestic industries from foreign competition. Governments argue that tariffs encourage local production, but history shows they often lead to price increases, trade wars, and job losses.

Effects of Tariffs:

Increased prices for consumers.
Retaliatory measures from trading partners.
Disruptions to supply chains and global markets.
Higher production costs for businesses reliant on imports.

Tariffs and Power: A Tool for the Rich

The idea that tariffs help working people is one of the greatest economic deceptions of all time. Since the 16th century, ruling elites have used tariffs under the guise of economic protectionism, but their real beneficiaries have been wealthy industrialists and colonial powers. Britain, France, and Spain imposed tariffs not to defend their workers, but to enrich their empires, hoarding wealth while restricting economic mobility for the majority.

Historical Impacts:

Shielded the profits of domestic elites while keeping wages low.

Increased government coffers, but rarely redistributed wealth to the working class.

Fuelled economic resentment, from the American Revolution to modern-day trade wars.

The U.S. Tariff Policies: Dividing the Nation

America has always had an uneven relationship with tariffs. In the 19th century, protectionist tariffs benefited Northern manufacturers but devastated the South, which depended on cheap imports. The Tariff of 1828—nicknamed the "Tariff of Abominations"—lined the pockets of industrialists but crushed Southern farmers, leading to the Nullification Crisis as states revolted against Washington’s economic control. Later, the Morrill Tariff of 1861 helped fund the Civil War but exacerbated regional inequalities.

Key Consequences:

Cemented economic divides that contributed to the Civil War.
Made industrial magnates richer while rural workers suffered.
Exposed the lie that tariffs "help the country"—they help one side and cripple the other.

The Smoot-Hawley Disaster: A Lesson Never Learned

One of history’s greatest economic blunders, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, was meant to "protect American jobs." Instead, it helped wreck the global economy. The U.S. raised tariffs on over 20,000 imports, triggering retaliation from other nations. The result? A downward spiral of economic nationalism that deepened the Great Depression.

Devastating Effects:

Global trade collapsed, with U.S. exports dropping 61% between 1929 and 1933.
Mass redundancies and factory closures wiped out jobs.
Cemented tariffs as an economic disaster that benefits no one but economic isolationists.

The Post-War Shift: Why the World Abandoned Tariffs

After WWII, world leaders realised that tariffs were a fast track to economic ruin. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT, 1947) and later the World Trade Organisation (WTO, 1995) sought to dismantle the protectionist barriers that fuelled past crises. Free trade agreements weren’t about corporate benevolence—they were an attempt to prevent another global collapse.

Economic Shifts:

Created an era of globalisation that, while imperfect, lifted millions out of poverty.

Industrialised nations flourished, but inequality persisted as corporations chased profits over fair wages.

Made economies dependent on international cooperation, raising the stakes of trade wars.

Trump’s Trade War: A Disaster in the Making

In 2018, Trump reignited the tariff war by imposing duties on $360 billion worth of Chinese goods. Predictably, China retaliated, hammering U.S. farmers and manufacturers. The working class paid the price, literally through higher costs on everything from groceries to cars.

Economic Fallout:

U.S. consumers were forced to absorb an extra $46 billion in costs annually.

Market uncertainty led to redundancies in farming and manufacturing.

Multinational corporations simply relocated, dodging tariffs while keeping profits intact.

The 2025 Tariff Plan: Who Pays This Time?

Fast forward to today. Trump has imposed 25% tariffs on Canadian and Mexican imports and hiked duties on Chinese goods to 20%. Once again, the sales pitch is "American jobs first." And once again, the real winners will be multinational corporations finding loopholes while working families struggle.

Immediate Effects:

The S&P 500 and Nasdaq plunged, showing investor panic.
The Canadian dollar and Mexican peso tanked, increasing economic instability.
Canada retaliated with $107 billion in counter-tariffs, which will boomerang back on U.S. businesses and workers.
China added new restrictions on U.S. companies, disrupting supply chains.
Honda and other manufacturers have begun shifting operations—proving that corporations will adapt, but workers will suffer.

How Tariffs Impact Consumers and Workers

While Trump’s tariffs will undoubtedly make headlines, it’s the everyday consumer who bears the brunt.

The Price Hike Trap:

Groceries, electronics, and cars will become more expensive as import costs soar.

Businesses will pass tariff expenses onto workers, who already struggle with stagnant wages.

The Job Destruction Cycle:

Agriculture and manufacturing will take the biggest hit as retaliatory tariffs slash demand for U.S. exports.

Companies like Honda are shifting production, which means job relocations—not job creation.

Inflation and Cost of Living:

Tariffs act as a hidden tax, reducing real wages as the cost of living rises.

Workers will pay more for essentials while billionaires continue dodging taxes and exploiting cheap labour abroad.

Retirement and Economic Security:

Market instability from trade wars will devalue retirement savings.

Pensions and investment funds will take a hit as uncertainty spooks investors.

Key Takeaways: Who Really Wins?

Corporate Loopholes Keep the Rich Untouched – Large companies find ways to adapt, while small businesses and workers bear the cost.

Retaliation Is Always the Result – History proves that trade wars escalate, crippling the very industries tariffs claim to protect.

The Working Class Pays the Price – From higher grocery bills to job insecurity, tariffs always punish the many for the benefit of the few.

Protectionism is a Myth – Tariffs don’t "protect jobs"—they protect profits for the elite while leaving workers scrambling.

Conclusion: The People’s Response

If history has taught us anything, it’s that tariffs are a political distraction, not a solution. Today’s tariffs will hurt working-class people first and foremost—raising prices, jeopardising jobs, and weakening economic security. Workers, unions, and consumer groups must demand policies that truly support the economy—investment in public infrastructure, fair taxation on the rich, and a real industrial strategy that protects workers, not just profits. The fight against economic injustice starts here.