From an extraordinary attack on the very people who create British jobs to fresh questions over defence spending, Brexit and Britain’s historical responsibilities, Labour faced a barrage of criticism following a series of controversial interventions over the weekend.
Labour was plunged into another political row on Sunday as four senior figures found themselves at the centre of controversies over business, national defence, Brexit and slavery, prompting Conservative Shadow Justice Secretary Nick Timothy to question whether the Government’s priorities reflected those of the British public.
Perhaps the most extraordinary moment came from Chief Secretary to the Treasury Emma Reynolds, who appeared on GB News with Camilla Tominey and suggested that employers were not working people.
Yes, employers. The people who build businesses, create jobs, pay wages, shoulder financial risks and, in countless cases, work evenings, weekends and holidays to keep their companies afloat.
Asked about Labour’s taxation policies and its manifesto commitment to protect working people, Reynolds declared: “I don’t think employers are working people.”
It was a remarkable distinction from a senior Treasury minister responsible for helping oversee the nation’s finances.
Across Britain, millions of small business owners will recognise a very different reality. The independent shopkeeper opening at dawn, the builder employing apprentices, the restaurant owner covering shifts when staff are unavailable, and the family business struggling to meet its payroll are all employers. They are also people who work.
Many work far longer hours than the conventional working week, often without the security of a guaranteed salary, paid holiday or the protection of an employer to fall back on when things go wrong.
Yet Reynolds appeared determined to distinguish employers from employees as Tominey challenged her over whether employing a cleaner meant she herself could no longer be considered a working person.
The minister insisted there was a difference between the two groups, although the exchange raised an obvious question: does Labour truly understand how Britain’s small businesses operate?
The controversy cuts to the heart of Labour’s repeated assurances that it would protect working people from higher taxes.
In October 2024, then Chancellor Rachel Reeves increased employers’ National Insurance contributions, a measure Labour defended on the grounds that it affected employers rather than employees.
Critics argued that this ignored the consequences for businesses making decisions about recruitment, wages and investment.
The latest remarks have reignited precisely that argument.
Conservative Shadow Defence Secretary James Cartlidge responded by pointing out that employing people is one of the hardest jobs there is and that Labour is making it harder.
Reform UK’s Treasury spokesman Robert Jenrick accused Labour of failing to understand business, asking what the minister’s comments meant for millions of small business owners who employ staff.
For a Government that continually promises economic growth, the distinction between the people earning wages and the people responsible for providing them has become a politically explosive one.
But that was only the beginning of Labour’s difficult Sunday.
Chancellor John Healey faced uncomfortable questions on the BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg over the Government’s plans to increase defence spending to three per cent of GDP by 2030.
Healey, who previously resigned as Defence Secretary amid disagreements over the pace of military spending increases, declined to offer an unequivocal commitment to meeting the earlier target.
Instead, he referred to 2030 as a “target date”, while promising that detailed plans would be presented at next year’s Spending Review.
He reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to NATO’s target of 3.5 per cent of GDP on core defence spending by 2035.
The distinction matters.
A target is an ambition. A funded commitment requires a credible plan explaining where the money will come from and when it will be delivered.
With Britain facing serious security challenges, including the continuing threat posed by Russia and growing demands on the Armed Forces, uncertainty over defence funding gives the Conservatives another line of attack.
The Government insists it is increasing military investment, but critics will want to know why a Chancellor who previously considered greater defence spending sufficiently important to resign over it is now reluctant to give an unconditional commitment to the 2030 milestone.
Meanwhile, former Chancellor Rachel Reeves added another controversy to Labour’s weekend by declaring her belief that Britain’s future lies inside the European Union.
Writing in The Sunday Times, Reeves argued that Brexit had made the United Kingdom “poorer, weaker and less secure” and welcomed Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s willingness to revisit Britain’s relationship with Brussels.
Her intervention marks a striking departure from the position Labour presented to voters at the 2024 general election, when the party ruled out reversing Brexit.
Reeves was not simply calling for improved trading arrangements or closer diplomatic cooperation. She expressed support for Britain’s eventual return to EU membership, while acknowledging that supporters would need to make their case and demonstrate the benefits.
Burnham has also said he would like Britain to rejoin the EU in his lifetime, although he has ruled out doing so during the current Parliament.
For critics of Labour, the question is whether a party elected on a manifesto explicitly ruling out reversing Brexit is now preparing the political ground for a fundamentally different approach.
And then came the fourth controversy, this time from Downing Street itself.
Prime Minister Andy Burnham confirmed that he was open to discussing a formal British apology for the country’s historical involvement in the transatlantic slave trade.
Writing in The Guardian ahead of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, Burnham expressed sorrow over the suffering inflicted by slavery and said Britain should engage in a structured dialogue with affected countries.
Importantly, Burnham explicitly rejected financial reparations, arguing that people living in Britain today should not be held financially liable for historical wrongs in which they played no personal part.
Nevertheless, his willingness to consider a state apology has prompted concern among Conservatives that it could encourage renewed demands for compensation.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch warned against making an apology that could become a means of pressing Britain for money.
It is a debate touching not only on Britain’s historical involvement in slavery but also on the country’s leading role in the abolitionist movement, including the work of campaigners who fought to bring the trade to an end.
Together, the four controversies gave the Conservative opposition considerable ammunition.
Nick Timothy, the Shadow Justice Secretary, drew the threads together in a post on X on Sunday, accusing Labour figures of suggesting employers were not workers, failing to commit firmly to the 2030 defence target, supporting a return to the EU despite the party’s previous election position, and opening the door to further arguments over slavery reparations.
He finished with a pointed question: “Are their priorities your priorities?”
Labour would argue that its ministers are drawing legitimate distinctions over tax policy, setting out defence spending ambitions, debating Britain’s future relationship with Europe and confronting difficult questions about history.
But the political problem is that these arguments arrive against a backdrop of mounting questions over the cost of doing business, the credibility of spending commitments and the Government’s long-term direction.
The events of Sunday 1 November exposed significant tensions between Labour’s economic rhetoric and the realities facing employers, between defence ambitions and firm spending guarantees, and between its previous Brexit promises and the views now being expressed by senior figures.
And at the centre of it all remains one deceptively simple question.
If a person risks their savings, builds a company, employs staff, pays their wages, works six or seven days a week and keeps a business alive, how can a Treasury minister suggest that person is not a working person?
That is the question Emma Reynolds’ critics will be demanding Labour answers.
