(Credit: Yau Ming Low / Alamy)

4 min read7 min

But amidst Strait of Hormuz closures and instability in the region due to the US’s ill-advised war on Iran, international oil and gas prices, to which Britain’s energy prices are mostly pegged, have risen, and so will energy bills.  

In the coming months, as colder temperatures return and households use more energy, further immediate action is needed to cut the cost of energy.  

Moving social and environmental levies, or what some call ‘policy costs’, off electricity bills and into general taxation could reduce energy bills quickly and in a way that benefits lower-income households. 

The funds these levies generate are vital, financing the building of future energy infrastructure and support programmes like the Warm Homes Discount. But the way they are currently distributed, charged at a flat rate per unit of electricity, was described by experts to the Environmental Audit Committee as regressive. This means that they disproportionately add costs to lower-income households with limited ability to invest in alternatives that could lower their bills or change how and when they use energy. It is absurd that households claiming the Warm Homes Discount are actually part funding their own subsidy through paying the levies. 

More progressive funding of policy costs by moving them to general taxation was one of the key recommendations from the Environmental Audit Committee to the UK government in our final report on the Seventh Carbon Budget. This measure would reduce electricity bills for all households and also better align affordability with decarbonisation objectives. 

A first step to reduce the policy costs on electricity bills was taken by Rachel Reeves at last year’s Budget, but this intervention is temporary, with Treasury support due to end in Spring 2029. Yet even after that, levies make up nine per cent of an electricity bill (in contrast to three per cent of a gas bill). Some low-income households continue to spend more than three times the proportion of their net income on levies than wealthier households.  

Not only does the current levy structure penalise low-income households, it also penalises those seeking to switch away from fossil fuels and install cleaner heating such as heat pumps. It is illogical that the UK still taxes homegrown renewable electricity more than imported fossil fuel gas.  

Research by The MCS Foundation has shown that levy reform could save households on average £120 every year, with low-income households using direct electric heating benefiting the most. This move would represent a significant strike on the cost of living, bringing more than 800,000 households across the country out of fuel poverty.  

It would also further incentivise the transition to clean heat, giving households confidence that switching to heat pumps and other renewable heating systems will reduce their running costs. High electricity prices in the UK act as a disincentive for households to switch to heat pumps. Analysis across European countries has shown there is a strong correlation between the spark gap – the ratio between electricity and gas prices – and heat pump deployment rates of a country. 

In the long run, transitioning to homegrown renewable electricity will protect British households from international gas price spikes, ensuring affordability in the long-term. The increasing amount of renewable energy in the UK has helped limit electricity bill rises, as compared to gas, and reduce the amount of time that gas sets the overall energy price. However, building more renewable energy, and expanding and upgrading the grid to connect this clean energy, will take time to take effect to reduce energy bills.  

In the short-term, moving policy costs off electricity is a decision that Andy Burnham could take immediately to significantly reduce household energy bills. I urge him to do so. 

Toby Perkins is the Labour MP for Chesterfield, and chair of the Environmental Audit Committee

Britain’s land-based betting and gaming venues are already facing rising employment costs, higher business rates, soaring energy bills and the impact of successive regulatory changes. Against that backdrop, the SMF are now urging ministers to pile on another tax increase.

The question ministers should be asking is not simply how much extra tax would or wouldn’t be raised, but what damage it would do to the businesses, jobs and communities expected to pay it.

It is easy for a think tank to recommend higher taxes from behind a desk. It is much harder to explain the boarded-up bingo clubs, shut betting shops, closed casinos and lost jobs that would follow.

On the surface, the SMF recommends increasing Machine Games Duty. In reality, it is asking ministers to make a much bigger choice: are they prepared to accept the closure of valued leisure venues across Britain in pursuit of a policy that is unlikely to deliver what it promises?

The report fails to answer that question.

Businesses cannot simply absorb a tax increase of this scale. The inevitable consequence is fewer venues, fewer jobs and less investment in communities that can least afford to lose them. Since 2019, more than 3,000 betting shops have closed, costing over 16,000 jobs. 22 casinos have shut their doors with the loss of more than 3,000 jobs, while 108 bingo clubs have closed, resulting in the loss of more than 2,000 jobs. How many more betting shops would close? How many bingo clubs? How many casinos? How many livelihoods would disappear? And what would be the impact on working men’s clubs, miners’ welfare institutes and other community associations that rely on regulated gaming machines to help fund the services they provide?

Those are not side issues. They are the central questions.

Indeed, towards the end of the report is an explicit acknowledgement that reducing the supply of gambling is part of its intended effect. That completely undermines its economic argument. You cannot claim a tax rise will generate more revenue while advocating policies that would close the very businesses expected to pay it.

These are not anonymous businesses on a Treasury spreadsheet.

Many of these businesses have been part of their communities for decades. They are run by local managers, employ local people and provide steady jobs in towns where good employers are becoming harder to find. Their customers also support neighbouring cafés, pubs and shops, helping to keep Britain’s struggling high streets alive.

Nor are their customers an afterthought. Betting shops, bingo clubs and casinos are social hubs where adults choose to meet friends, watch sport, enjoy bingo or place a bet responsibly. The suggestion that customers are simply being lured in to lose money is patronising and wrong. The report dismisses those customers entirely, assuming it knows better than the adults who use these venues responsibly every day.

The same applies to working men’s clubs and miners’ welfare clubs, many of which rely on regulated gaming machines to help keep their doors open as employment costs, business rates and energy bills continue to rise. These are exactly the kinds of community institutions politicians say they want to protect.

Those consequences may not be felt in the Westminster bubble, but they will be felt in the North of England, in seaside towns, former mining communities, market towns and city centres where another boarded-up premises would replace another long-established local business.

There is also a snobbery running through this debate that deserves to be challenged. Too often, metropolitan commentators appear comfortable telling working people how they should spend their money while showing little regard for the venues people value, the jobs they support or the communities they serve.

The consequences extend far beyond the high street.

Every betting shop that closes also weakens one of Britain’s most cherished sports. Licensed betting operators contribute hundreds of millions of pounds every year through the Horserace Betting Levy and media rights payments, supporting racecourses and the wider racing industry. Land-based betting shops are a vital part of that funding. Racing is already under financial pressure and cannot afford to lose it. The impact would be felt far beyond the racecourse, affecting stable staff, trainers, breeders, farriers, vets and thousands of small businesses that depend on a thriving racing industry. Decisions taken on betting shop taxation are not confined to one sector; they ripple through communities and rural economies across Britain.

The report also assumes spending will simply move elsewhere and jobs will be replaced. That is an assertion, not evidence. There is no compelling case that communities become more prosperous when regulated venues disappear.

Its economic case is equally weak. The SMF assumes increasing Machine Games Duty will boost Treasury revenues. History suggests otherwise. Following the reduction in machine stakes in 2018 (effect 1^st April 2019), over 2,000 betting shops closed and gambling duty receipts fell and have never recovered to previous levels. Shrinking the regulated market does not maximise tax receipts; it reduces the number of businesses paying tax.

Then there is the illegal gambling market.

Every time the regulated sector is made less competitive, criminal operators stand to benefit. They pay no UK tax, create no British jobs and offer none of the age verification, safer gambling tools or consumer protections required of licensed operators. Weakening legitimate businesses while strengthening the black market is not sound public policy.

Perhaps the most revealing finding in the report is one its authors may not have intended. Their own polling shows most people do not support increasing taxes on gaming machines.

Public policy should not be driven by assumptions or ideology. It should be driven by evidence and an honest assessment of consequences.

Of course gambling harm must be addressed. Our members continue to invest heavily in safer gambling tools, technology and interventions because protecting customers is fundamental to a sustainable regulated industry. But good intentions do not automatically make good policy.

If ministers follow the SMF’s advice, they will not simply increase Machine Games Duty. They will make a conscious decision to place legitimate businesses under even greater pressure, jeopardise thousands of jobs, weaken horseracing and accelerate the decline of community venues that have served Britain for generations.

That is not evidence-led policymaking.

It is a price Britain’s high streets and leisure venues simply cannot afford.

References

• Economic modelling of potential MGD increases (September 2026), EY Report for the Betting and Gaming Council

Credit: Adobe

Unless stated otherwise, the figures below are drawn from How Payments Can Power UK Growth, a 2026 Public First report commissioned by Visa, based on surveys of 2,000 consumers and 500 businesses, two focus groups, and interviews with consumer groups, payments providers, fintechs, building societies, and major retailers.

Trust and confidence are the fuel on which our payments system runs, and the foundation for future innovation.

Digital payments are now essential economic infrastructure, and when that infrastructure works, it goes largely unnoticed. You tap your card, click a button or unlock your phone, and the transaction is complete. Yet this apparent simplicity relies on a vast system of invisible elements working together simultaneously and is contingent on sustained investment to keep that infrastructure secure.

The UK has one of the most advanced and trusted digital payments sectors in the world. The benefits of tap-to-pay are already visible in everyday life. Contactless payments have become embedded in Britain’s transport network, making journeys simpler for millions of passengers and demonstrating how payments technology can help enable more seamless, integrated services.

Tap-to-pay has made accepting payments simpler for businesses of every size, reducing the time and cost for SMEs to get set up and start trading. At Visa, this is the work we invest in every day, putting the same processing, dispute and fraud-fighting capabilities used by the world’s largest retailers into the hands of Britain’s small businesses.

That success did not happen by chance, but through concerted efforts to innovate while prioritising trust, security and resilience.

Through research we commissioned from Public First, we know the digital payments sector alone has helped generate an estimated £88 billion in additional sales for British businesses since 2019, with £32 billion of that specifically for small and medium-sized companies. On a macro level, it added approximately £7.5 billion to UK GDP in 2024 alone. 

Looking ahead, a new wave of innovation is set to reshape the industry. AI agents that can shop and pay on our behalf, AI-driven fraud checks and stablecoins (which with proper regulation can operate as settlement tools to speed up transfers and reduce settlement risk).

Between them, these could further empower consumers, and to shift shopping and paying from manual checkout towards invisible, trusted experiences that reduce fraud and friction. But every one of these technologies will only be adopted at a meaningful scale if trust in the payments system holds. Innovation and security are the same argument, not competing ones.

Trust in digital payments is what makes people willing to tap a card, or click pay. 90% of UK consumers and 91% of businesses currently say they have strong levels of confidence in card payments. But this trust depends on security.

Consumers’ tolerance for risk is close to zero: around two-thirds say they wouldn’t complete a purchase over £5 if there’s more than a 5% chance of losing their money. Apply that across an economy where UK-issued cards were used for transactions worth more than £1 trillion in 2024, and it adds up fast.

The threat is only growing. Fraud is now the most common crime experienced in the UK: according to UK Finance’s 2025 Annual Fraud Report, £1.17 billion was stolen through payment fraud alone in 2024. Without sustained investment in prevention and resilience, it is ultimately the public who will pay twice: first in the money lost to fraud, and then in the more cautious, slower economy that follows as confidence drains away. People who have been victims of fraud cut their spending by over a third in the following months.

Across the economy, Public First estimates that this chilling effect costs £16 billion in consumer spending every year. Businesses experience this too – almost a quarter of those hit by fraud in the last year paused a planned investment into digital infrastructure.

The UK was where much of the last fintech revolution was built. Global networks like ours are part of how that happens, giving UK fintechs, merchants and small businesses the cross-border resilience and trusted security they need to grow. But trust is hard-won and easy to lose, and this is a highly mobile industry.

The Government’s plan to give the Bank of England a new secondary objective on innovation in payment systems and digital money, while maintaining financial stability remaining its primary duty, reflects the growing importance of these issues. Over time, the UK’s ability to attract investment and support innovation will depend on providing businesses with confidence and clarity as new technologies emerge.

Sustaining investment in security and resilience will be critical to maintaining trust in the UK’s payments ecosystem. Public First’s research suggests that, with the right conditions for investment and innovation, the digital payments sector could contribute an estimated £3.8 billion in additional growth by 2030. Without continued focus on security, consumer confidence could be undermined, the adoption of new technologies could slow, and the UK could miss out on significant economic opportunities.

2 min read1 hr

According to sources familiar with the discussions, representatives from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) along with other high-ranking government officials were called in to hear the Deputy Chief of Mission’s concerns that the social media ban would discriminate against US tech companies. 

The US is understood to believe there have been failures in the Australian social media ban, with officials highlighting small drops in usage by Under 16s. They argue that more parental controls rather than a widespread ban would work better.

Following a consultation, the U-16 ban was announced in June this year, after Australia introduced the world’s first outright ban on social media for under-16s in December 2025. Labour MP Emily Darlington, one of those who campaigned for the ban, told PoliticsHome: “The first duty of the government is to protect its citizens. Digital security is national security. It would be great to work with our allies on this, but if the UK has to, it will proceed alone”. 

While the meeting was presented as non-adversarial, PoliticsHome understands the US intended to use it to raise a litany of criticisms across a number of ministerial portfolios. The US feels the way in which the Online Safety Act’s levy on revenues from big tech firms is taken from a proportion of their global revenue rather than reflecting their UK size is unfair.

American officials are also believed to have repeated their warnings around the UK’s ‘trusted media’ reforms, which would see the BBC, ITV and others prioritised on social media algorithms, question how media brands were being placed in the ‘trusted’ camp and raised concerns that the changes to the algorithm could inadvertently affect US citizens. 

The US Embassy declined to comment. A DCMS source described the meeting as “routine engagement” and said the department would “continue to work closely to ensure policies are understood and to identify shared priorities”.

The intervention comes amid heightened tensions in the ‘special relationship’ after it was revealed that the US secretly flew out a diplomat accused of possessing child abuse images from the UK to face justice in the US. 

2 min read1 hr

According to sources familiar with the discussions, representatives from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) along with other high-ranking government officials were called in to hear the Deputy Chief of Mission’s concerns that the social media ban would discriminate against US tech companies. 

The US is understood to believe there have been failures in the Australian social media ban, with officials highlighting small drops in usage by Under 16s. They argue that more parental controls rather than a widespread ban would work better.

Following a consultation, the U-16 ban was announced in June this year, after Australia introduced the world’s first outright ban on social media for under-16s in December 2025. Labour MP Emily Darlington, one of those who campaigned for the ban, told PoliticsHome: “The first duty of the government is to protect its citizens. Digital security is national security. It would be great to work with our allies on this, but if the UK has to, it will proceed alone”. 

While the meeting was presented as non-adversarial, PoliticsHome understands the US intended to use it to raise a litany of criticisms across a number of ministerial portfolios. The US feels the way in which the Online Safety Act’s levy on revenues from big tech firms is taken from a proportion of their global revenue rather than reflecting their UK size is unfair.

American officials are also believed to have repeated their warnings around the UK’s ‘trusted media’ reforms, which would see the BBC, ITV and others prioritised on social media algorithms, question how media brands were being placed in the ‘trusted’ camp and raised concerns that the changes to the algorithm could inadvertently affect US citizens. 

The US Embassy declined to comment. A DCMS source described the meeting as “routine engagement” and said the department would “continue to work closely to ensure policies are understood and to identify shared priorities”.

The intervention comes amid heightened tensions in the ‘special relationship’ after it was revealed that the US secretly flew out a diplomat accused of possessing child abuse images from the UK to face justice in the US. 

Marsha De Cordova, Rosena Allin-Khan, and Fleur Anderson are the Labour MPs representing the constituencies in the London Borough of Wandsworth (Alamy)

3 min read24 min

PoliticsHome previously revealed that the south-west London borough was planning the country’s biggest ever tax rise. The council is expected to announce a rise of at least 160 per cent, with multiple figures – including higher figures – currently under consideration, according to multiple sources.

Wandsworth, which is Conservative-run after Labour lost control in May, currently has one of the lowest council tax rates in the country, with residents paying around 0.1 per cent of the value of the property they live in per year.

However, recent reforms to how central government distributes funding to local authorities have decreased the grant funding available to some London councils, including Wandsworth. Wandsworth Council funding is projected to fall by around 40 per cent.

The Labour government has said its reforms to local government funding prioritise parts of the country with higher deprivation so that the system is “truly based on need”. However, affected councils in the capital say the changes will exacerbate existing cost pressures and force them into significant tax rises.

Wandsworth Council recently worked with the Conservative Party to launch a formal appeal against cuts to local government funding, with Wandsworth Conservatives telling PoliticsHome that the new settlement “unfairly punishes Wandsworth residents”.

Westminster and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea are also set to follow Wandsworth in formally appealing the cuts.

Tory councillor and leader of Wandsworth Council Robert Morritt wrote to the Labour MPs representing constituencies in the borough of Wandsworth to ask whether they would support the council’s appeal to the Labour government.

Tooting MP Rosena Allin-Khan, Putney MP Fleur Anderson and Battersea MP Marsha de Cordova sent back a letter refusing to offer their support.

In the letter, seen by PoliticsHome, the MPs wrote that while they “continue to express our concerns about local authority funding challenges”, they “cannot support a narrative that seeks to rewrite the recent financial history of Wandsworth Council or shift responsibility for damaging choices that are being made by the current Conservative administration”.  

“When Labour left office in May 2026, Wandsworth Council was in a strong financial position,” they wrote.

“The Council had some of the highest reserves in London and no external debt. Labour maintained balanced budgets, delivered Britain’s lowest council tax and carefully managed public finances, while continuing to invest in local services and communities. 

“Residents are entitled to ask why a council that inherited such a strong financial position has already made cuts in services, and why they are being threatened with a council tax rise of 160 per cent and decisions to cut further services.”

The MPs also said they were concerned by the “increasingly political nature of council communications”. 

A spokesperson for Putney Conservative Association said: “It is deeply disappointing that Wandsworth’s three Labour MPs will not support the Council’s challenge to the government’s 40 per cent cut to Wandsworth’s funding.

“Putney MP Fleur Anderson and Tooting MP Rosena Allin-Khan both voted for the government’s Local Government Finance Report that implemented the new funding settlement, while Battersea MP Marsha de Cordova had no vote recorded.

“For them to refuse even to acknowledge the consequences of the settlement for residents, let alone support residents, is extremely disappointing. Whatever their party, our MPs should be putting Wandsworth residents first and joining us in fighting for a fairer deal.”