- “Keir Starmer finally breaks silence on gender ruling” – Keir Starmer has completed a humiliating U-turn on gender after finally welcoming the “clarity” provided by the Supreme Court’s recent landmark ruling, reports the Mail.
- “Starmer’s trans about-turn branded ‘shameless fiction’” – Keir Starmer has been accused of peddling a “shameless work of fiction” after the Government claimed it had always supported single-sex spaces for biological women, says the Telegraph.
- “This is surely Starmer’s most shameful U-turn yet” – It’s incredible that the Prime Minister has finally worked out what a woman is, writes Tom Slater in the Telegraph.
- “If Starmer had any shame he would have resigned after Supreme Court ruling” – The Prime Minister picked the wrong side in the trans debate, writes Allison Pearson in the Telegraph. And now that his side has lost, he should fall on his sword.
- “‘Trump is right, women’s sport should be for women only’” – On the Daily T podcast, tennis star Martina Navratilova warns Labour not to “unpick” the Supreme Court’s trans ruling.
- “Trans activists’ death threat signs reviewed by police” – The Metropolitan Police is reviewing death threats to women displayed by trans rights activists at a recent protest, the Telegraph can reveal.
- “The French migrant returns deal is a total farce” – A proposed UK-France migrant returns deal is a zero-sum swap that does nothing to deter illegal crossings or curb net migration, argues Tom Harris in the Telegraph.
- “Why Labour is finally publishing migrant crime league tables” – Labour aims to outshine the Tories on immigration by publishing migrant crime league tables, writes James Heale in the Spectator.
- “Labour reviews ‘two-tier’ bail rules that favoured minorities” – The Justice Secretary has ordered a review into two-tier bail rules which tells judges to be more lenient towards ethnic minority suspects, reports the Telegraph.
- “Reeves has only herself to blame for Britain’s bleak economic future” – The UK’s growth forecast downgrade by the IMF is the responsibility of the British Government, not Trump’s tariffs, says Matthew Lesh in the Telegraph.
- “Rachel Reeves’s art of the deal: give away everything for nothing” – Britain is once again bailing out Europe – this time in exchange for access to our fishing waters, writes Annabel Denham in the Telegraph.
- “Labour accused of ‘sabotaging’ Britain amid £2 billion blow to tourism sector” – The Government has been accused of “sabotaging” the UK’s tourism industry as analysis found spending by international visitors was more than £2.2 billion below pre-pandemic levels last year, reports the Standard.
- “Majestic pulls wines from shelves after tax raid makes them unprofitable” – Majestic Wine has been forced to pull bottles from small, independent vineyards off its shelves, warning that a barrage of new taxes has rendered many wines unprofitable, according to Conservative Post.
- “Votes for 16 year-olds is still a horrible idea” – Keir Starmer’s promise to enfranchise children might be his most ridiculous policy yet, says Mary Dejevsky in Spiked.
- “‘Labour must apologise for handing ‘pro-Hamas’ band £14,000’” – Kemi Badenoch has demanded Labour apologise for giving public funding to a pro-Hamas rap group, reports the Telegraph.
- “It’s not racist to criticise Islam” – Labour’s new definition of Islamophobia will silence vital public debate, warns Steven Greer in Spiked.
- “‘If we want to unite the Right and change politics, we need to get behind Reform’” – Pollsters predict local elections will see Conservative voters switch to Reform, but some fear that will split the vote and weaken both sides, writes Eleanor Steafel in the Telegraph.
- “Less Net Zero, more redemption: why the Catholic Church is already turning against Francis’ agenda” – The late Pope famously adopted a more liberal stance, but there’s growing support for a successor with a traditional conservative approach, says Catherine Pepinster in the Telegraph.
- “Nearly half of ‘COVID-19 deaths’ were not due to COVID-19, new study finds” – Nearly half of all recorded COVID-19 deaths in Greek hospitals during the Omicron wave were found to be unrelated to the virus, reveals Nicolas Hulscher on the Focal Points Substack.
- “Local Covid lockdowns ‘made no difference’, study suggests” – Local lockdowns and regional restrictions did not change people’s behaviour during the coronavirus pandemic, a new study suggests, says the Telegraph.
- “WHO pushes for permanent tech alliance to institutionalise digital health messaging and behaviour control” – The WHO is pushing for a permanent alliance with Big Tech to institutionalise digital health messaging and behavioural control, according to Reclaim The Net.
- “Trump to let Putin keep land seized from Ukraine” – Donald Trump will let Vladimir Putin keep almost all the territory he has seized from Ukraine under the terms of a proposed peace deal, reports the Telegraph.
- “The West can only survive by expunging the hateful radicalism in our universities” – The cretins at Harvard have stooped so low that it falls to a man like Trump to school them on antisemitism, says Jake Wallis Simons in the Telegraph.
- “Trump praised for sweet interactions with kids at Easter egg roll” – Donald Trump was all smiles, high-fiving kids and celebrating at the White House Easter egg roll, according to the Mail.
- “Women could be paid $5,000 to have babies under Trump” – Women could be paid “baby bonuses” of $5,000 as part of plans by the Trump administration to drive up birth rates, says the Telegraph.
- “Musk to step back from Doge after Tesla profits plummet” – Elon Musk has vowed to spend “significantly” less time working for Donald Trump’s administration and focus on Tesla after profits plummeted to a five-year low, reports the Telegraph.
- “Could this photo cost Mark Carney victory in Canada’s election?” – For a certain strain of Canadian boomer, a vote for Mark Carney is another surly strut against those urging them to take responsibility, writes Stephen Daisley in the Spectator – and a picture of a Carney supporter giving the camera the finger with both hands has come to symbolise this.
- “The Left’s grotesque betrayal of women and Jews” – In Spiked, Brendan O’Neill explores how the politics of identity breathed life back into ancient hatreds.
- “Have I Got News for You is a sad, unfunny spectacle” – Have I Got News For You deliberately missed the biggest news story of the week: the momentous ruling by the Supreme Court on the meaning of sex, writes Gareth Roberts in the Spectator.
- “BBC ‘satire’ is no laughing matter” – Have I Got News For You is state propaganda masquerading as comedy, says Paul Sutton on his Substack.
- “The media is driving a moral panic around Andrew Tate” – In UnHerd, Simon Cottee argues that the media’s portrayal of Andrew Tate’s influence on young boys is exaggerated and driven by moral panic.
- “Bravo, Kemi, for having the courage to scrap non-crime hate incidents” – In the Telegraph, Allison Pearson pays tribute to the Conservative leader for committing to the abolition of non-crime hate incidents
- “‘We need to abolish non-crime hate incidents so police can concentrate on catching real criminals’” – On X, shadow home secretary Chris Philip MP explains why he’s calling for the complete abolition of so-called non-crime hate incidents.
If you have any tips for inclusion in the round-up, email us here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“Elon Musk has vowed to spend “significantly” less time working for Donald Trump’s administration and focus on Tesla after profits plummeted to a five-year low, reports the Telegraph.”
Oh, I thought Musk and everyone said that was fake news…
Trump – pretty good
Musk – not good at all
Musk gets completely blown out of the water when the market enters one of its period weighing phases and fundamentals start to matter and the green charabanc falters and TSLA paper loses 99% of its current price to reflect the real value of the company, i.e. nothing more than a fancy logo for sale to a proper car manufacturer. Everything Musk does should be viewed through this lens. A very clever grifter he is, but it is yet to be proven just how much of his wings are made of wax.
I maintain, Trump has figured him out, after initially falling for his line.
Trump, in his time, has periodically played a totally stupid system of taxes and laws.
Musk, on the other hand, has played everyone, in an extremely cynical and two-faced manner. There’s only so long that can last. The tide is going out, and Musk ain’t wearing any trunks.
Nonsense from start to finish.
Care to qualify that statement?
“period weighing phases”
I meant to write “periodic weighing phases”
As in the maxim, “the market is mostly a voting machine, but sometimes becomes a weighing machine”.
Covid Jab Unsafe For Human Use – latest leaflet to print at home, deliver to neighbours, forward to your bad MP & friends online. Start a local campaign. Deliver 100 leaflets a week (5200 a year). Over 300 leaflet ideas on the link on the leaflet.
The French migrant returns deal is a total farce
Until Britain takes defence seriously, empowers the Royal Navy with strong rules of engagement, makes Britain indispensable to the forward defence of Western Europe, this country will get no change out of the eu on anything, least of all regarding France and immigration, fishing.
Strong defence pays for itself many times over, most particularly if the defence budget includes another Royal Yacht…….
Trump to let Putin keep land seized from Ukraine
‘Point three requires Ukraine to refrain from seeking membership of Nato’
First off, point three drives a coach and horses through the Helsinki Accords, to which the USSR was a signatory, agreed by the CSCE within which the Russian Federation is still a participating member state:
‘I. Sovereign equality, respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty
The participating States will respect each other’s sovereign equality and individuality as well as all the rights inherent in and encompassed by its sovereignty, including in particular the right of every State to juridical equality, to territorial integrity and to freedom and political independence. They will also respect each other’s right freely to choose and develop its political, social, economic and cultural systems……They consider that their frontiers can be changed, in accordance with international law, by peaceful means and by agreement. They also have the right to belong or not to belong to international organizations, to be or not to be a party to bilateral or multilateral treaties including the right to be or not to be a party to treaties of alliance; they also have the right to neutrality.
II. Refraining from the threat or use of force The participating States will refrain in their mutual relations, as well as in their international relations in general, from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State…….No consideration may be invoked to serve to warrant resort to the threat or use of force in contravention of this principle. Accordingly, the participating States will refrain from any acts constituting a threat of force or direct or indirect use of force against another participating State. Likewise they will refrain from any manifestation of force for the purpose of inducing another participating State to renounce the full exercise of its sovereign rights. Likewise they will also refrain in their mutual relations from any act of reprisal by force. No such threat or use of force will be employed as a means of settling disputes, or questions likely to give rise to disputes, between them.’
If Russia does not adhere to point one of the Accords (and it clearly does not) it can hardly complain when, in the future, as it gets weaker (as it undoubtedly will) Ukraine does not adhere to point two regarding acts of reprisal by force…..
So the current plan is no basis for long term peace in Europe, otiose in any case because Putin is not serious about long term peace…..because such a peace would guarantee Russia’s future weakness…….
‘We were taught to cite international law while violating its spirit, to defend norms while dismantling them and to speak of peace while justifying and waging wars. Georgia. Syria. Ukraine. These weren’t deviations.
We deployed whichever claim of “Territorial integrity” or “self-determination” suited the day’s talking point.
This is Russian anti-normism in action.’
‘Don’t mistake performance for principle. You cannot appeal to shared norms when the other side sees norms as tools to be gamed. You cannot assume diplomacy is about trust when the training teaches distrust as doctrine.’
Inna Bondarenko, Graduate of MGIMO, Russia’s elite diplomatic academy
You fervently promote the necessity for countries to have a strong defence force – and why not? But how should a country react when it is threatened by somebody else’s forces?
NATO currently has only one enemy – Russia. If USA remains in NATO then China will undoubtedly be added to the short-list but Russia has been the number one target since the foundation of NATO. And it was Putin who at the time suggested to US President Clinton that Russia could join NATO, only for Clinton to be subsequently told by his advisors that that would be totally unacceptable: what would have been the purpose of NATO without an enemy?
So how should Russia have reacted when threatened with placement of nuclear missiles aimed at its cities on its 2,000km border to Ukraine? How should Russia have reacted when its former citizens (citizens, mind you, not military) were being attacked daily by Ukrainian forces? How should Russia have reacted upon the West setting up peace agreements while knowing full well that those peace agreements were only put in place to provide more time for the West to train and equip Ukraine’s military forces? How should Russia have reacted on the placement of over a dozen secret sites inside Ukraine’s border to Russia, where CIA and MI6 operatives were training Ukrainians to launch terrorist attacks against Russia? How should Russia have reacted to the clear fact that Ukrainian attacks against Russian forces were being planned, organized and coordinated by US military officers, using US surveillance capabilities and intelligence, with weapons being aimed and fired at Russian targets by Western military officers?
How should Russia react today on learning that it is now UK leading Ukraine’s military operations against Russia?
As reported by Scott Ritter two days ago (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_PVmZhFxYk):
I think General Cavoli’s people are already not engaged in the operational planning. That was being done through the Ramstein contact group, that was the logistics end of it, but that fed into the whole cooperation. I think the British have taken over the lead for that and so the operational planning right now is being done with a British lead, French support, and America sort of hanging in the background, which is a frustrating place for Cavoli to be because he is the commander of NATO forces and yet he has to take a back seat to this plan because of his status as an American.
We are providing intelligence, my understanding though this is primarily defensive in nature – that is the early warning notifications of Russian missile launches so that the Ukrainians can cue their air defence systems – but we’re no longer providing the targeting data that was used by the Ukrainians to strike Russia, with their ATACMS missiles, their HIMARS missiles or even with their artillery systems. And so there’s been a throttling down, a significant throttling down of support to Ukraine.
We can all be very thankful that President Putin has a whole lot of patience because he has certainly been provided with many reasons over and over again to directly attack the West. And he hesitates not because Russia would lose – the contrary is the case – but because he knows how catastrophic that would be for the whole world, bearing in mind the number of highly irresponsible politicians in the West with their fingers on nuclear triggers.
‘Putinversteher’ is German shorthand for those who rationalize Putin’s actions under the guise of understanding.
‘Western leaders are now publicly criticizing Putin’s refusal to engage in meaningful peace talks. “It is urgent that Russia stops with the pretences and stalling tactics and accepts an unconditional ceasefire,” Macron commented recently…..Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated last week that Trump was not “going to fall into the trap of endless negotiations” with Moscow.
Trump’s initial attempt to broker a Ukraine peace deal by offering Putin an attractive off-ramp has failed. He must now decide whether he is prepared to employ sticks as well as carrots. At present, Putin has little interest in limited territorial concessions and remains committed to the destruction of Ukraine as a state and as a nation. Crucially, he has been encouraged by Trump’s reluctance to maintain US support for the Ukrainian war effort. This has strengthened the Russian ruler’s conviction that he can ultimately outlast the West in Ukraine.
In order to force a change of mood in Moscow, the United States must increase the costs of the invasion while undermining Russian hopes of military victory. This can be achieved by tougher sanctions measures targeting the Russian energy sector along with increased military aid that will allow the Ukrainian army to regain the battlefield initiative. Anything less will be interpreted by the Kremlin as a tacit green light to continue the invasion. If Trump is serious about persuading Putin to seek peace, he must first convince him that the alternative is defeat.’
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/russias-endless-ceasefire-excuses-are-proof-that-putin-does-not-want-peace/
‘Charm the West with trade. Threaten neighbors in the background. Speak diplomacy, practice coercion. That isn’t just hypocrisy, it’s a strategy. It’s the realpolitik we were trained to believe in and to carry out.
Morgenthau. Waltz. Primakov. Mearsheimer.
Morgenthau. Waltz. Primakov. Mearsheimer.
I could recite them in my sleep — just like my grandparents once recited Lenin and Marx.’
‘Russia is and must remain a derzhava — a “great power.” Not just one country among many, but a pole in a multipolar world. A country destined to challenge the West. That belief — fused with resentment, imperial nostalgia and a constant sense of grievance — forms the backbone of Russian diplomacy.’
Putin does not want peace. He wants a pause. He has had a taste of what the U.S. can do to his economy, oil prices dipping below $50/barrel briefly. So he talks, for now….but his intention to colonise Ukraine and Moldova, the Suwalki corridor in Poland, is clear.
And that means war with NATO……
As a Putinversteher I not only understand Putin, I consider him to be one of the very few highly educated and intelligent politicians in the world, certainly topping any Western examples – or can you name an intelligent Western leader?
Referring once more to the points I made above, why should Putin “engage in meaningful peace talks”, especially with Western leaders who have consistently and repeatedly broken numerous agreements with Russia in the past?
Russia is certainly a great power – just look at the size of the country on any world map – but it is not a country “destined to challenge the West”: it is very simply a country the West unjustifiably continues to challenge and attack, also militarily.
The West is incapable of simply treating Russia with the respect due to any sovereign nation. It is the West that continues to want to dominate and subjugate countries around the world: a very sad state of affairs.
And the latter state is typified by your closing statement above: “And that means war with NATO”. What means war with NATO? The fact that NATO has been attacking Russia for the past 3 years? How about peace for a change?
Just how much do you, or anyone in the West, really care about Ukraine – a distant country, justifiably renowned for corruption? Are you going to praise ‘bastions of democracy’ or the like, in countries such as USA and UK, where politicians are simply bought by wealthy personalities or organizations, or where citizens are arrested for thought crimes? That is not very convincing.
“This can be achieved by tougher sanctions measures targeting the Russian energy sector”
Because the existing sanctions have been oh so successful?
All this talk about shame and resignations after the ruling against the mentally ill trans lot is a distraction. A distraction to shift the public consciousness away from the murderer and rape of our children by successive governments that are murdering and raping our country – for which there is no shame and no resignations. They’re throwing titbits to the masses to dampen a growing anger. Expect to be thrown more such titbits.
I think the whole trans thing is just a giant smoekscreen. Something unimportant on which to keep the masses squabbling and distracted while all the important stuff gets decided quietly out of sight.
Quite. They are committing treason, of that there is no doubt. https://open.substack.com/pub/freelemming/p/treason?r=1t3odl&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
“Trump to let Putin keep land seized from Ukraine” I don’t think Trump is in any position to stop Putin.
“Keir Starmer finally breaks silence on gender ruling”
Sir Two-Tier needing a Supreme Court Beak to tell him what the rest of us worked out in nursery-school.
Trump to let Putin keep land seized from Ukraine
Putin is in a ‘fork’ (forked), forced to the negotiating table through weakness.
Ukraine’s economy is secure. Putin’s economy is in meltdown so he has to negotiate, which means a ceasefire.
‘Ukraine’s sources of external financing are secured until 2027. By contrast, Russia is in a potentially weaker position, as it is highly exposed to price volatility in global oil markets. Russia has been running down its National Wealth Fund to pay for the war, is locked out of international bonds markets through sanctions, and has become more import dependent since it launched the full-scale invasion despite the incentives that sanctions create to turn towards import substitution. A further downturn in oil market prices could lead to an acute balance of payment problem for the Russian regime.’
https://peacerep.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Russo-Ukrainian-War-The-Political-Economy-of-the-Present-Balance-of-Forces-DIGITAL.pdf
But he cannot have a ceasefire without European military training teams flooding into Ukraine…..
And, without a ceasefire:
‘Russia’s defense industrial base (DIB) cannot sustain Russia’s current armoured vehicle, artillery system, and ammunition burn rates in the medium-term. Russia’s recruitment efforts appear to be slowing such that they cannot indefinitely replace Russia’s current casualty rates…..Putin has mismanaged Russia’s economy, which is suffering from increased and unsustainable war spending, growing inflation, significant labour shortages, and reductions in Russia’s sovereign wealth fund.’
ISW Feb 2025
However:
‘MGIMO teaches the opposite: offensive realism. Not the nuanced academic kind, but its hardened, ossified version where power is truth, might makes right and “spheres of influence” are gospel.
From day one, we were taught that Russia is and must remain a derzhava — a “great power.” Not just one country among many, but a pole in a multipolar world. A country destined to challenge the West. That belief — fused with resentment, imperial nostalgia and a constant sense of grievance — forms the backbone of Russian diplomacy.’
Inna Bondarenko, graduate of MGIMO, Russia’s elite diplomatic academy.
So good luck with the negotiations!
PeaceRep is a leading developer of PeaceTech and peace data!
Ukraine’s economy is secure. What ?! It is not secure one second without the massive financial support provided by the West. Its civil servants – not to mention its military – are all paid courtesy of USA, UK and EU. Ukraine’s population has been halved (?) by the exodus due to the war and war losses.
And Russia has sufficient customers around the world and more than just oil to sell, not to mention the fact that our Arabian benefactors will hardly support any drop in oil prices which is not to their benefit.
And what is Russia’s place again in the world’s economical ratings? Fourth? And how are Western countries doing?
‘The core metric for understanding this conflict is “money and people”: the mobilisation of financial resources and labour power through effective social organisation and institutionalisation to strengthen the capacity of the state.
On this measure, Ukraine shows considerable strength, though it is conditional on sustained external support.
The state capacity built during the war bodes well for its transition to civilian reconstruction.
Russia, by contrast, faces narrowing options: its resource-based model is approaching its limits due to the downward trend in oil prices, and the longer the war drags on, the more this creates a zero-sum logic between its civilian and military economy. The test of the regime’s brittleness is however “still to come” – and could take the form of how it handles a banking crisis.
he likely exit of the United States from the stage of Ukraine support does not make Ukraine doomed to defeat. But neither side have a viable theory of “total victory” at the present time, though there may be an argument that Russia’s economic challenges put Ukraine in a stronger position if the war does continue in a high intensity form into 2026.’
https://peacerep.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Russo-Ukrainian-War-The-Political-Economy-of-the-Present-Balance-of-Forces-DIGITAL.pdf
The core metrics for any conflict are money and power. Good luck with your beliefs! (But you really do not need to repeat them on a daily basis.)
If anybody cares to wade through this garbage they will understand why Majestic have reacted as they have.
How much time and therefore money, taxpayers money don’t forget, has this utter stupidity cost?
We even have a paragraph detailing “Equalities Impacts.”
And the copy I have quoted is the second half of the regulations there is as much again preceding this.
A clearer example of the mindless, pig ignorant garbage that government is pissing about with.
It’s enough to make anyone believe that this government is determined to destroy all businesses involved / relying on alcohol as a source of income.
No, surely not…
Proposed revisions
Schedule 7 is amended so that the revised rates are:
£9.61 per litre of alcohol in the product for duty on all alcoholic products less than 3.5% alcohol by volume
£10.02 per litre of alcohol in the product for duty on still cider at least 3.5% but less than 8.5% alcohol by volume
£10.02 per litre of alcohol in the product for duty on sparkling cider at least 3.5% but not exceeding 5.5% alcohol by volume
£21.78 per litre of alcohol in the product for duty on beer at least 3.5% but less than 8.5% alcohol by volume
£25.67 per litre of alcohol in the product for duty on spirits, wine and other fermented products at least 3.5% but less than 8.5% alcohol by volume
£25.67 per litre of alcohol in the product for duty on sparkling cider exceeding 5.5% alcohol by volume but less than 8.5% alcohol by volume
£29.54 per litre of alcohol in the product for duty on all alcoholic products at least 8.5% but not exceeding 22% alcohol by volume
£32.79 per litre of alcohol in the product for duty on all alcoholic products exceeding 22% alcohol by volume
Schedule 8 is amended so that the revised rates for products qualifying for Draught Relief are:
£8.28 per litre of alcohol in the product for the reduced rate of duty on all draught alcoholic products less than 3.5% alcohol by volume
£8.63 per litre of alcohol in the product for the reduced rate of duty on draught still cider at least 3.5% but less than 8.5% alcohol by volume
£8.63 per litre of alcohol on product for the reduced rate of duty on draught sparkling cider at least 3.5% but not exceeding 5.5% alcohol by volume
£18.76 per litre of alcohol in the product for the reduced rate of duty on draught beer, spirits, wine and other fermented products at least 3.5% (but less than 8.5%)
£18.76 per litre of alcohol in the product for the reduced rate of duty on sparkling cider exceeding 5.5% but less than 8.5% alcohol by volume
The marginal discount and cumulative discount figures in the tables at Schedule 9 are amended for non-draught products and maintained for draught products, to increase the Small Producer Relief percentage discounts. This will include for both non-draught and draught products, for each litre of pure alcohol:
First five hectolitres
All products between 1.2% to 3.4% alcohol by volume (except spirits), 3.5% to 8.4% alcohol by volume cider, sparkling cider, wine and other fermented products — 100% discount.
Spirits between 1.2% to 3.4% alcohol by volume — 66.1% discount
Beer between 3.5% to 8.4% alcohol by volume — 91.5% discount
Spirits between 3.5% to 8.4% alcohol by volume — 81.4% discount
Above first five hectolitres
All products 1.2% to 3.4% alcohol by volume (including spirits) — starts at a discount of 25.4%
Beer between 3.5% to 8.4% alcohol by volume — starts at a discount of 50.9%
Sparkling cider between 3.5% to 5.5% alcohol by volume and Cider between 3.5% to 8.4% alcohol by volume — starts at a discount of 25.4%
Sparkling cider between 5.5% to 8.4% alcohol by volume, wine and other fermented products between 3.5% to 8.4% alcohol by volume — starts at a discount of 10.2%
Spirits between 3.5% to 8.4% alcohol by volume — starts at a discount of 10.2%
Summary of impacts
Exchequer impact (£ million)
2024 to 2025 2025 to 2026 2026 to 2027 2027 to 2028 2028 to 2029 2029 to 2030
-10 -85 -85 -90 -95 -100
These figures are set out in Table 5.1 of Autumn Budget 2024 and have been certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility. More details can be found in the policy costings document published alongside Autumn Budget 2024.
Economic impact
This measure is not expected to have any significant macroeconomic impacts. The costing accounts for behavioural responses whereby the demand for alcoholic products is adjusted in response to the duty rate change. The costing is also adjusted to account for reverse forestalling of draught products.
Impact on individuals, households and families
This measure will have an indirect impact on individuals who consume alcoholic products if the changes on duty rates are passed on to individuals through higher or lower prices for these products.
Assuming 100% pass through to prices wherever alcohol is purchased, from 1 February 2025 the tax on a typical:
4% alcohol by volume pint of draught beer will be 1 pence lower
4.58% alcohol by volume pint of draught beer (average strength) will be 1 pence lower
4% alcohol by volume 500ml bottle of non-draught beer will be 2 pence higher
5% alcohol by volume pint of draught cider will be 1 pence lower
5% alcohol by volume 500ml bottle of non-draught cider will be 1 pence higher
40% alcohol by volume 25ml serving of whisky will be 1 pence higher
5.4% alcohol by volume 250ml can of spirits-based ready to drink will be 1 pence higher
11% alcohol by volume 250ml glass of still wine will be 3 pence higher
11.5% alcohol by volume 250ml glass of still wine will be 5 pence lower
13% alcohol by volume 250ml glass of still wine will be 8 pence higher
The end of the wine easement will cause an additional duty increase for wines 12.5% to 14.5% alcohol by volume and a decrease for wines 11.5% to 12.4% alcohol by volume. With the example of the 8 pence increase for a 13% alcohol by volume 250ml glass of still wine — 4 pence of the increase is due to the end of the wine easement, 4 pence is due to the Retail Price Index uprating.
Individuals who consume stronger alcoholic products may pay more through the revised Alcohol Duty rates.
Individuals who consume draught alcoholic products at on-trade venues (such as pubs) may pay less due to the draught rates being lower than the non-draught Alcohol Duty rates.
These measures are not expected to impact on family formation, stability or breakdown.
Customer experience of engaging and interacting with HMRC is expected to remain the same, as there will be no changes in the way duty is collected.
Equalities impacts
Those who drink alcohol are represented in each of the groups sharing protected characteristics. This measure is expected to have both positive and negative impacts on protected groups where alcohol consumption is higher. People will experience a negative impact as a result of this measure as the cost of non-draught alcoholic products will increase, however cost increases can disincentivise alcohol consumption resulting in a beneficial impact to health. Also, people will experience a positive impact from the cost of draught alcoholic products being reduced as a result from this measure. This might result in negative health impacts if people consume more alcohol because of the cost decrease.
Men (61.9%) are more likely to drink alcohol than women (52.4%) and are also more likely to exceed recommended consumption limits. The frequency of alcohol consumption tends to increase with age, with people aged 16 to 24 drinking alcohol less frequently in a given week (47.9%) than people aged 45 to 64 (64.6%). However, young adults are more likely to exceed recommended consumption limits making the difference in total consumption between age groups less pronounced.
Alcohol consumption also varies across ethnic groups, with people from white British (22.6%) and other white ethnic groups (14.8%) being more likely to consume alcohol compared to Asian or Asian British (3.7%), black or black British (7.1%), and mixed, multiple or other ethnic groups (9.9%). People who identified with no religious group are more likely to consume alcohol than Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists.
Alcohol consumption has been linked to mental ill-health with alcohol misuse more prevalent in those with mental health conditions. Finally, the LGBT+ population (32%) are more likely to drink to excess compared to the general population (24%).
Impact on business including civil society organisations
The changes in Alcohol Duty rates will impact on alcoholic product manufacturers, importers and retailers. The measure is expected to have a negligible administrative impact on up to 10,000 businesses that either produce alcoholic products in the UK, import alcoholic products into the UK, or are involved in warehousing alcoholic products in duty suspense. Those businesses affected by the duty rate change will incur a negligible one-off cost of familiarisation with the new duty rates.
There are not expected to be any continuing costs. This measure is not expected to have any impact on civil society organisations. Customer experience is expected to remain broadly the same as this measure does not alter how businesses interact with HMRC.
This measure will have some impact on the hospitality industry affected by the Alcohol Duty uprating. However, the impact will be reduced as Draught Relief means that eligible draught products are subject to lower Alcohol Duty rates.
This measure will impact on some small and micro businesses affected by the Alcohol Duty uprating. However, the impact will be reduced for producers eligible for Small Producer Relief.
Operational impact (£ million) (HMRC or other)
HMRC will need to make changes to IT systems to implement the measure. A review of the changes and respective costs are ongoing.
Other impacts
Increasing Alcohol Duty rates on non-draught alcoholic products by Retail Price Index may lead to a minor decrease in overall alcohol consumption in the UK. Any reduction in alcohol consumption from this measure may also be associated to reductions in alcohol-related economic inactivity.
Other impacts have been considered and none have been identified.
Monitoring and evaluation
This measure will be monitored through information collected from tax receipts.
Further advice
If you have any questions about this change, contact alcohol policy at mailbox.alcoholpolicy@hmrc.gov.uk.
Back to top
Is this page useful?
Yes
No
Report a problem with this page
“It’s not racist to criticise Islam”
That’s because Islam is a religion not a race! there are many white Muslims in the world
Point two: islamaphobia is an invented word, a phobia is a fear of something an example being spiders, if you have arachnophobia does this mean you hate spiders? no it means your frightened of them, phobia is a fear not hatred
How about Confusionismaphobia? does this mean we hate all Chinese?
I don’t know why people don’t use the word ‘Anglophobia’ more, as this seems way more appropriate and accurate regarding what we’re seeing on a daily basis. Shamefully, this would apply also to many white English traitors;
”Hatred or fear of England or its people, culture, customs, influence etc.”
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/anglophobia
EDIT: According to the definition in the link, ‘phobia’ can also mean ‘an aversion toward’ something, so perhaps it’s dependent on the context.
“Local Covid lockdowns ‘made no difference’, study suggests” – Local lockdowns and regional restrictions did not change people’s behaviour during the coronavirus pandemic, a new study suggests, says the Telegraph.
And right there is the problem. She should not be seeking to influence public behaviour.
A study into behaviours in the 1918 ‘Spanish ‘Flu’ published in 2007 included
People don’t need to be manipulated or coerced in an epidemic. The presentation of actual data concerning an epidemic is enough. People can then make their own decisions. Note one of the authors of that study: Neil Ferguson who in the infamous Report 9 concluded:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/22/public-ignored-scotlands-covid-restrictions-study-suggests/
However, let’s not forget that none of these re-examinations are necessary – there was No Pandemic.
I wonder why there is so much fuss about the events commencing March 2020 all of a sudden? This publicity wouldn’t be linked to the upcoming matters due in July would they?
The next one?
Surely not.
Update on the prosecution of Reiner Füllmich: https://expose-news.com/2025/04/22/german-secret-service-dossier-reveals/.
For exposing the truth about the covid “pandemic,” Dr. Füllmich was under special surveillance since 2021, a German secret service dossier provided by a whistle-blower and presented to the court reveals.
The dossier specified that Füllmich was to be stopped “at all costs”; that “it is necessary to prepare a criminal case against Füllmich, [including the] collaboration of prosecutors and suitable third parties,” and recommending “the recruitment and involvement of trusted persons amongst Füllmich’s closest circle.”
After ongoing abuse and obfuscation, the court is now obstructing Dr Füllmich as he gives his final, closing statement.
“‘If we want to unite the Right and change politics, we need to get behind Reform’”
Well now, it seems Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke Badenoch’s relatives may be helping Reform unite with the Tories.
Reform UK council candidate helps Nigerians get UK study visas – while Nigel Farage demands crackdown and blasts UK universities for being ‘drunk on foreign money’ | Daily Mail Online
Notice how Reform candidate Christopher Adegoke hides his eyes behind sunglasses or an overhanging baseball cap, and keeps his mouth firmly closed, except for this one photo. Perhaps to conceal any family resemblance, or suggestions of nepotism?