City AM, on UK Politics, 3 November 2026

3.0out of 10Minor

‘The government needs to take us seriously’: Pub landlords brew plans to bar MPs – again

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.2 findings

Pub landlords across the country are poised to launch a fresh ban on hundreds of MPs after a campaign to cut VAT on hospitality fell on deaf ears in the House of Commons. Andy Lennox, who led a ban on Labour MPs following the surge in business rates bills caused by last year’s Budget, told City AM landlords are on the verge of launching a new movement to bar politicians. He said any new action, which would include thousands of pubs across the UK, would ban every MP who has not shown public support to a cut for VAT for hospitality firms.

Lennox said: ”There is so much anger out in the industry at the moment and following the Budget there have been a number of comments made by Treasury ministers and actions by the Chancellor that just show there is zero respect for our industry and for what we do.” Pub, bar and restaurant bosses had been urging the government to halve VAT to 10 per cent in a campaign led by celebrity chef Tom Kerridge. But John Healey opted not to heed these calls at last week’s Budget.

Instead, he confirmed an already-announced 20 per cent cut to pubs’ business rates and hiked alcohol duty by 2p on every pint. Lennox added: “The government needs to take us seriously and seemingly lobbying MPs and having the support for a VAT cut line with Europe of nearly 300 of them isn’t cutting through – further action is required.” 354 MPs could be barred If Hospitality Voices, the group of pub landlords led by Lennox, goes ahead with a new ban, 354 MPs could find themselves barred from their local.

The group’s tracker shows that these hundreds of MPs, including Andy Burnham and John Healey, have failed to back a cut to VAT while 296 have shown support. The hospitality sector’s anger towards the Labour government was further fuelled over the weekend, when Treasury minister . Lennox, who runs several pubs in Dorset and Hampshire, said: “Emma Reynolds’ comments are an insult to everyone who has built a business and created jobs.

If this is how the Treasury sees employers, it explains its extraordinary disconnect from business.” Pub bosses will decide next week whether to launch a new ban on MPs. It is hoped that this new campaign could garner more bipartisan support because it is not targeted at one political party. Last December, being handed out by then-Chancellor Rachel Reeves.

Read the original article on cityam.com (opens in a new tab)
What we found (2)

City AM reports that a pub landlords' group led by Andy Lennox is weighing a new ban on MPs who have not backed a VAT cut for hospitality. It attributes the threat and the figures to Lennox and his group's tracker, but it states as its own fact that last year's ban produced a £300m relief package. It also gives a minister's words only as a three-word fragment with no reply from the Treasury.

  1. States one side's claim as fact

    Minor

    “pub landlords’ decision to ban Labour MPs from their premises eventually resulted in a £300m business rates relief package”

    Why this matters
    City AM writes in its own voice that the ban "eventually resulted in" the £300m relief package. That is a claim of cause and effect.
    The impression it gives
    A reader takes it as established that the pub ban forced Rachel Reeves to hand over £300m. Ending on this line also presents the new ban as a tactic that works.
    The context
    The article gives no source for the causal link. The campaign has an obvious interest in claiming credit, and no minister or government source is cited on why the relief was granted. The link should have been attributed.

    How we know

    • Checked against the whole articleIt never uses the words “credited”.

    Show it in the article

  2. One side gets the space

    Minor

    “Emma Reynolds said that employers are “not working people” as she tried to justify tax hikes”

    Why this matters
    City AM reduces the minister's remarks to a three-word fragment. It then says in its own voice that she "tried to justify tax hikes", and hands the reply to Lennox in S12 and S13.
    The impression it gives
    A reader believes the minister simply dismissed employers. They also never learn that the government had any answer to the landlords' complaints.
    The context
    The article quotes only Lennox throughout. It gives no fuller context for Reynolds' remarks and no response from the Treasury or the Chancellor.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“Emma Reynolds’ comments are an insult to everyone who has built a business”

    Show it in the article

What it gets right

  • “The group’s tracker shows that these hundreds of MPs, including Andy Burnham and John Healey, have failed to back a cut to VAT while 296 have shown support.”

    It gives the source of the MP count. Its figures add up across the Commons and match the "nearly 300" in Lennox's quote.

  • “told City AM landlords are on the verge of launching a new movement to bar politicians”

    The threat of a new ban is clearly attributed to Lennox, not stated as a decision already taken. S14 confirms the decision is still to come.

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from City AM

  1. 3 NovConfusion and delay still at heart of Labour’s China strategy0.0
  2. 2 NovMahmood waters down migration rules for care workers in £10bn gamble6.0
  3. 2 NovLabour races ahead of Reform and Tories with eight-point lead3.0
  4. 2 NovLabour’s media leaking is corroding parliamentary standards0.0
  5. 2 NovMy year as Lady Mayor showed me why representation matters0.0

Everything we scored from City AM