The Treasury strongly denies the post-Iran price surge will enrich it (Image: Getty)
Rachel Reeves is “making a killing at the nation’s expense” as energy prices surge as a result of the war in Iran, Reform UK’s economy spokesman has claimed. Robert Jenrick, who will serve as Chancellor if Nigel Farage becomes Prime Minister at the next election, said it is “frankly outrageous” that cash-strapped Britons are “paying through the roof in taxes to Rachel Reeves when they can barely afford to heat their home and put food on the table”.
Labour has announced a £53million support package for vulnerable people hit by increases in the cost of heating oil, but Mr Jenrick dismissed this as “small change”. He said the Chancellor could net £40million in extra taxes a week as a result of the conflict. This is through higher petrol and diesel prices and greater household, industrial and business energy costs.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Accusing Ms Reeves of a “dereliction of duty”, he said: “Hard-pressed Brits are paying taxes to Rachel Reeves and she is banking that money and doing nothing to help them in their hour of need. So she’s basically making a killing at the nation’s expense. She’s coining it in. She’s making a killing off the backs of pensioners and hard-pressed British families right now and it needs to end.”
Reform has pledged to scrap VAT and green levies on household energy bills, claiming its measures would save the average family £200 a year. The Chancellor is also under mounting pressure to scrap plans to phase out from September the 5p cut in fuel duty introduced after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine triggered the last energy shock.
Mr Jenrick said: “If Rachel Reeves cared about how tough things are for people right now, she would scrap her plans to increase fuel duty. If she doesn’t, Reform will reverse it in our first Budget.”
Reform UK has made energy prices a major campaigning issue (Image: PA)
With May’s local elections looming, Reform has made high energy costs a key campaigning issue – even urging voters to visit nigelcutmybills.com to enter a prize draw to have their entire street’s bills paid for one year.
Mr Jenrick said the “serious point behind it” is that “everyone is hurting at the moment”. UK household electricity prices are higher than almost every other large industrialised country.
Describing the human cost of high energy prices, he said: “There are pensioners whom I’ve met who have spent the winter shivering, having to turn down their thermostat because they can’t afford to heat their home and are now worried about what the future holds for them. I’ve met people whose oil bill has gone up by 200% and they literally cried when they received the bill because they didn’t know how they’d be able to pay for it. Enough is enough.”
Mr Jenrick attacked “net zero madness” and pushed for new oil and gas exploration to start in the North Sea immediately.
He said: “The first thing that Rachel Reeves could do would be to tell [Energy Security and Net Zero Secretary] Ed Miliband to grant the licenses so we can drill, drill, drill in the North Sea.”
The former Conservative cabinet minister said it is “scandalous” Norway is exploring new North Sea fields while in the British territory “zilch is happening”.
A Government spokesman strongly denied Mr Jenrick’s claims there could be a a £40million a week tax windfall for the Treasury as a result of higher costs.
He said: “This isn’t true. Domestic energy price rises reduce VAT revenues overall. We understand people are worried about how global conflicts could affect the cost of living. It’s still too early to know the full impact of this crisis, but as the Chancellor said, she will take the necessary decisions to support families and protect public finances.”
Mr Jenrick said: “Our number one priority is ensuring that this war doesn’t have any worse effect on people’s cost of living here in the UK than it already is and so we want the war to come to an end as quickly as we can.”
Robert Jenrick’s defection from the Conservatives was a major moment for Reform UK (Image: Getty)
The war in Iran has focused minds across the political spectrum on the importance of energy security – not just to keep costs down but to keep the nation running.
Nick Butler, a former adviser to Gordon Brown, warned that Britain’s energy imports from Norway would be targeted by Russia in a war and this could lead to the “physical breakdown of supplies to key areas of the economy”.
There are growing calls for the importance of home-sourced oil and gas to be recognised as the country “transitions” towards a clean energy future. The Government is being pushed to allow more production in the North Sea to boost public finances and make the UK less reliant on imports.
Aberdeen City Council co-leader Christian Allard – who wants to make the city the “net zero capital of Europe” – warned that “without oil and gas there won’t be any energy transition”.
Robert Jenrick Blasts Rachel Reeves for ‘Making a Killing at Britain’s Expense’
Robert Jenrick has launched another attack on Rachel Reeves and Labour’s economic record, accusing the former Chancellor of leaving households and businesses facing higher costs while the government struggled to generate stronger economic growth.
The Reform UK Treasury spokesman has made criticism of Reeves a central part of his party’s economic message, arguing that higher taxation, increased government spending and weak productivity have placed too much pressure on working people.
His latest intervention comes as the government faces renewed scrutiny over borrowing costs, business confidence and the state of the public finances.
Reeves is no longer serving as Chancellor after the change of government leadership earlier this year, but Jenrick continues to use her record in the Treasury as a target for Reform’s wider argument that Britain needs a substantial change in economic policy.
The language used by Jenrick is highly political. His accusation that Reeves has been “making a killing at Britain’s expense” is a criticism rather than an established description of the Chancellor’s personal conduct or financial position.
The underlying economic debate, however, is substantial.
Jenrick’s attack on Labour’s economic record
Jenrick has argued that Labour’s economic policies have increased the burden on employers and households.
One of Reform’s most prominent criticisms concerns the rise in employer National Insurance introduced under Reeves.
The party has pledged to reverse the increase for British workers as part of a broader proposal to alter the tax treatment of domestic and overseas workers.
Under Jenrick’s proposal, employers would pay lower National Insurance contributions for British employees, while companies employing overseas workers would continue to pay the existing rate and face an additional charge through a proposed migrant labour levy.
Reform says the policy would make it cheaper for companies to employ and train British workers.
The party has presented this as part of a wider “workers first” economic programme.
The proposal illustrates Jenrick’s broader approach: rather than simply reducing taxation across the economy, Reform wants to use the tax system to influence business decisions, employment and immigration.
The £100 billion promise
Jenrick’s criticism of Reeves is also connected to Reform’s ambitious programme for reducing public spending.
At the party’s September conference, Reform announced plans to cut more than £100 billion of spending within its first 100 days in government.
Jenrick said the package would include around £50 billion of welfare reductions, another £20 billion to £30 billion of departmental savings and an estimated £28 billion reduction in debt-interest costs.
These are Reform’s projected savings rather than independently established amounts that a future government would automatically achieve.
The practical scale of the reductions would depend on legislation, departmental decisions, welfare eligibility rules, economic conditions and the response of financial markets.
Nevertheless, the figures demonstrate the scale of the change Jenrick is advocating.
His argument is that Britain does not primarily need higher taxes to stabilise the public finances. Instead, Reform believes significant savings can be found within existing government expenditure.
That puts Jenrick directly at odds with Labour’s approach to public finances.
Why the public finances remain under pressure
The government’s financial position has become more difficult as borrowing costs have increased.
Recent reporting showed that higher debt-servicing costs were putting pressure on the government’s fiscal headroom. In March, the then government had increased its fiscal buffer to £23.6 billion, but rising borrowing costs and spending commitments have subsequently reduced the available room.
This is important because both Labour and Reform face the same underlying constraint: promises have to be financed.
For Labour, the challenge is to maintain investment and public services while keeping within fiscal rules.
For Reform, the challenge would be to demonstrate that proposed spending reductions can actually be delivered at the scale claimed without creating significant disruption to public services.
Jenrick’s criticism assumes that substantial savings can be found.
Whether those savings could be achieved without affecting frontline services is ultimately a question of policy detail rather than political rhetoric.
Reeves’ defence of her record
Reeves has consistently argued that Labour inherited a difficult economic situation.
In her July 2026 Mansion House speech, she said that when Labour entered office it faced weak growth, rising interest rates, high debt-interest costs and pressure on public services.
She also argued that the government had repaired the public finances while increasing investment in infrastructure and public services.
According to Reeves, government borrowing fell from 5.2% to 4.2% of GDP during the previous year, while investment and productivity increased.
She described the government’s economic approach as an investment-led model in which an “active and strategic state” works with businesses to support growth.
That is fundamentally different from Reform’s approach.
Reform places much greater emphasis on reducing the size and cost of government, while Labour has argued that public investment can create the conditions for stronger long-term growth.
The argument over taxation
Taxation is one of the sharpest areas of disagreement.
Labour increased employer National Insurance contributions as part of its effort to raise additional revenue for public services.
The government argued that difficult decisions were necessary to stabilise the public finances.
Reform has argued that the increase makes it more expensive for businesses to employ people and could therefore discourage recruitment.
Jenrick’s proposed reversal would therefore be designed not simply as a tax cut, but as an economic incentive for employers.
However, removing a significant source of government revenue would create another fiscal challenge.
Any government replacing that revenue would need to identify equivalent savings, increase other taxes or accept higher borrowing.
This is why Jenrick’s wider £100 billion savings programme is so important to Reform’s economic argument.
The tax reductions and spending cuts are interconnected.
Business and employment are at the centre of Jenrick’s strategy
Jenrick has sought to position Reform as the party of lower business costs and stronger incentives to employ British workers.
His proposals include changes to National Insurance, a higher VAT threshold for smaller businesses, changes to employment regulation and measures intended to encourage investment.
Reform has also proposed a £15,000 personal tax allowance and changes to the treatment of overtime.
The party argues that these measures would increase disposable income and make it easier for businesses to expand.
But again, the results would depend on how employers respond.
A lower tax burden can increase incentives to invest or hire, but the size of that effect depends on demand, labour availability, productivity and wider economic conditions.
There is therefore a substantial gap between announcing a tax reduction and demonstrating its eventual economic impact.
The wider economic backdrop
Jenrick’s intervention comes at a difficult time for the UK economy.
In September, the government was already preparing for a challenging Budget, with increased borrowing costs and uncertainty affecting its fiscal position.
The current Chancellor, John Healey, has argued that growth and fiscal discipline need to be pursued together.
In a September speech, Healey announced a £150 million fund for fast-growing northern companies, saying the government wanted to use public investment to attract private capital and support regional economic growth.
The government has therefore continued to argue that investment is part of the solution.
Jenrick takes a different view of the balance between spending and reform.
He argues that Britain needs a smaller and more efficient state before taxpayers can be given substantial relief.
That disagreement goes to the heart of the current political argument over Britain’s economic future.
Jenrick’s criticism of Reeves has a wider political purpose
Although Reeves is no longer Chancellor, attacking her record allows Reform to frame Labour’s economic policies as an example of what the party says it would do differently.
The message is relatively straightforward.
Reform argues that Labour raised taxes, increased costs for businesses and failed to produce the level of growth that voters were promised.
Labour’s counterargument is that the government inherited weak growth and damaged public finances and has had to make difficult decisions while increasing investment.
Neither side can be assessed solely through political slogans.
Economic outcomes are influenced by factors beyond the control of any one government, including interest rates, energy prices, international trade, geopolitical events and global financial conditions.
The question of debt interest
One of the most striking elements of Jenrick’s programme is the claim that Reform could reduce debt-interest costs by £28 billion.
This is particularly significant because debt interest is not normally an area where governments can simply impose a direct spending cut.
The amount the government pays depends heavily on the size of the debt, interest rates, inflation and the composition of government borrowing.
Reform’s figure is therefore based on its wider economic assumptions and proposed fiscal changes rather than a simple administrative saving.
This is an area where independent scrutiny would be particularly important if the proposals were ever implemented.
The same applies to the party’s welfare savings.
Reducing welfare expenditure by £50 billion would represent a major change to the benefits system and would require detailed eligibility reforms and decisions about which groups would be affected.
A clash between two economic philosophies
The dispute between Jenrick and Reeves is therefore about more than personalities.
It reflects two different approaches to the role of the state.
Labour’s model emphasises public investment, regional development, infrastructure and an active state working alongside businesses.
Reform’s approach emphasises spending restraint, lower taxes, deregulation and reductions in what it considers unnecessary government expenditure.
Jenrick’s attack on Reeves fits squarely within that ideological divide.
His argument is that taxpayers have carried too much of the burden and that government should reduce spending before asking the public for more money.
The Labour response is that sustainable growth requires investment and that reducing public spending too aggressively could weaken essential services and economic capacity.
What comes next
The significance of Jenrick’s intervention will ultimately depend on whether Reform can turn its headline promises into detailed, costed and implementable policies.
The party has made ambitious claims about reducing spending by more than £100 billion, cutting taxes and encouraging businesses to employ British workers.
Those measures could represent a substantial restructuring of the British economy if implemented.
But they would also involve difficult choices.
Lower taxes mean less revenue unless matched by spending reductions or other sources of income. Large welfare cuts could affect millions of households. Reductions in departmental budgets could affect public services. And assumptions about debt-interest savings would depend partly on financial-market conditions.
That is why the argument over Reeves’s record is likely to continue well beyond the political rhetoric.
Jenrick has made clear that Reform intends to make taxation, government spending and economic growth central themes of its political campaign.
Reeves’ record provides him with a convenient target, particularly because the former Chancellor remains closely associated with Labour’s approach to taxation and public finances.
But the broader question is whether Reform’s alternative can demonstrate the same level of detail and financial credibility that it demands from its opponents.
For now, Jenrick’s “making a killing” accusation is best understood as a forceful political criticism rather than an independently established description of Reeves’s actions.
The substantive debate is clearer: Britain faces pressure from high borrowing costs, difficult public finances and weak growth, while the major parties and Reform propose sharply different ways of responding.
Whether the answer lies in higher public investment, deeper spending cuts, lower taxation or some combination of all three remains one of the central economic questions facing British politics.