London, 18 August 2026: With a little over two months to go until Chancellor John Healey's first Budget on Wednesday 28 October and a persistent fiscal imbalance, PensionBee has looked at the parliamentary voting records of five people who will shape it: Prime Minister Andy Burnham, Chancellor John Healey, Chief Secretary to the Treasury Emma Reynolds, Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden, and Pensions Minister Torsten Bell.
The Office for Budget Responsibility's forecast, published alongside the Budget, will ultimately dictate how much room any of them actually have to make their policy dreams a reality.
With income tax, VAT and employee National Insurance rate rises all but ruled out by the Labour government’s manifesto pledge, wealth, property and capital taxes look the most likely route to raising revenue. This is also where the current government’s voting records are most consistent.
But as with investing where past performance is not a guarantee of future returns, past voting records are no guarantee of future tax policy. Backbench votes cost little and don't always survive when coming into contact with the government.
Andy Burnham has almost always voted against welfare cuts and for higher taxes on top earners and capital gains. This record points away from benefit cuts as a way to close the gap.
John Healey has voted consistently for a mansion tax and further capital gains tax rises, and against VAT increases, suggesting a wealth-focused Budget.
Emma Reynolds, who runs the spending review as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, has almost always voted for capital gains tax rises and stamp duty increases.
Pat McFadden, who owns the welfare budget, has almost always voted against benefit spending cuts, suggesting any DWP savings are more likely to come from benefits reform rather than headline cuts.
Torsten Bell, who was brought into government as Pensions Minister, naturally has the most pension-specific record: consistent support for capital gains tax and stamp duty rises, and as Minister, defended the already-legislated £2,000 salary-sacrifice pension cap (from Budget 2025) against a Lords attempt to raise it.
Becky O’Connor, Head of Pensions at PensionBee, said: “‘The past is history, tomorrow is a mystery’ is an inspirational quote that can certainly be applied to second guessing Budget decisions. Although it’s hard to ignore the voting records of key ministers that point towards tax rises and away from welfare cuts, history shows that voting records and government policy don't always match up.
“The same caution applies here: a decade of backbench votes tells us about instinct and ideology, rather than intent. Just as ‘feelings aren’t facts’, fevered speculation is not policy announcement.
“When it comes to wealth or income tax increases, the way measures affect pension savers, in particular those already retired, is a minefield when it comes to actually achieving any wealth redistribution goals. This is because taxation geared towards pension wealth - as with more income tax for higher earners - does not always have the intended effect of making the wealthiest pay more, but can instead end up penalising those who have worked hard, saved diligently and made net economic contributions but are not necessarily wealthy.
“Savers should avoid making key decisions that may have long-term consequences for their own financial future based on rumours, historical voting records or assumptions.
“The sensible approach is to wait for the actual details set out on 28 October, and speak to a financial adviser if needed, before acting. Damage has recently been done through pension savers moving on speculation, particularly in relation to pension taxation. It’s best to wait until the facts are known and the impact quantifiable.”
%201.png){kind=small}