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 Rah Invasion: How Out-of-Touch Posh Students Are Ruining Working-Class University Towns

ITK Magazine
Mar 12, 2025
3 min read

For years, the UK’s prestigious universities have been infiltrated by a particular breed of student—the “rah”. Hailing from wealthy backgrounds, often privately educated and blissfully unaware of the privilege they wield, these individuals descend upon traditionally working-class university towns with an air of entitlement, condescension, and cultural blindness. Their presence isn’t just annoying; it actively damages the communities they pretend to ‘slum it’ in for three years before scurrying back to Daddy’s estate.

A Tale as Old as Time

From Durham to Newcastle, Leeds to Liverpool, and even as far as Glasgow and Manchester, the pattern is the same. Rahs flood into working-class towns, treating them like safari parks, wide-eyed and fascinated by their ‘gritty’ surroundings. They’ll feign interest in the local culture—just enough to craft a quirky anecdote for future dinner parties in Kensington.

They sneer at the accents, mock the nightlife, and dismiss the local population as “a bit rough” while simultaneously gentrifying neighbourhoods and inflating rent prices. The working-class people who actually built and sustain these communities are shoved aside, their pubs turned into soulless artisan gin bars, their independent cafés replaced by overpriced sourdough bakeries.

Looking Down Their Noses

Let’s be clear: rah culture is inherently classist. These students swan into towns with the same arrogance their ancestors probably had while surveying colonial territories. They come for an ‘authentic experience’, but only on their own terms. A night out in the local pub is an ironic exercise in people-watching. The local takeaways are treated as meme material.

They say things like:

“Oh my God, the locals actually go clubbing here. Imagine living here forever!”
“I swear, everyone in this town just has kids at 19 and works in a chippy.”
“The housing here is so cheap! Can’t believe people live like this though.”

Never mind the fact that most of these ‘locals’ work gruelling jobs to keep the economy of these towns alive while rah students leech off parental trust funds.

Economic and Cultural Damage

Rahs don’t just bring their sneering attitudes—they bring economic destruction.

They artificially inflate rent prices, as landlords hike up costs to capitalise on students willing to pay whatever their parents will cover.
They push out local businesses, favouring posh cafés serving oat-milk matcha lattes over family-run greasy spoons that have existed for generations.
Their partying and anti-social behaviour give students a bad name, reinforcing the belief that universities are detached from the realities of local life.

By the time they leave (inevitably for a London finance job secured through nepotism), they’ve left their mark: unaffordable rent, a sanitised high street, and a growing divide between students and locals.

Universities Need to Act

Frankly, it’s time universities took responsibility for the class divide they perpetuate. There needs to be active support for working-class students, from financial aid to ensuring student accommodation doesn’t price locals out of housing. Moreover, universities must address the blatant classism that runs through their student bodies, from societies to social circles.

If these rahs truly want to ‘experience’ working-class life, let them try surviving on a minimum wage job, without Daddy’s money cushioning every fall. Until then, their patronising attitude towards the communities they invade needs to be called out for what it is—modern-day class tourism, with all the arrogance and none of the self-awareness.

It’s time we made our universities truly inclusive, not playgrounds for the posh elite to gawk at the working class from a safe distance.