Rachel Reeves will face further questions this morning after being accused of presiding over a manifesto-busting budget that rose taxes by £26bn.

The chancellor has acknowledged she is “asking ordinary people to pay a little bit more” following her series of announcements yesterday, including extending the freeze on income tax bands.

But when challenged by Sky News political editor Beth Rigby that this amounted to a breach of Labour’s manifesto, she argued it didn’t because the rates themselves had not changed.

Ms Reeves said the party’s election document was “very clear” about not raising the rates of income tax, national insurance, and VAT.

But she added: “If you’re asking does this have a cost for working people? I acknowledge it does.”

The chancellor – who will be questioned on Mornings With Ridge And Frost from 7am – is set to inflict a record tax burden upon Britain.

Her other measures include:

• A “mansion tax” on properties worth over £2m;

• New taxes on the gambling industry to raise more than £1bn;

• A new mileage tax for electric vehicles from April 2028;

• Slashing the amount you can save in a tax-free cash ISA from £20,000 to £12,000, except for over-65s;

And in a move that will prove particularly unpopular with savers, people paying into a pension under salary sacrifice schemes will face national insurance on contributions above £2,000.

Read more:
Budget key points at a glance
What the budget means for you

The tax rises – which were published by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) ahead of time in an unprecedented blunder – are mostly needed to pay for increased welfare spending.

Ms Reeves announced the abolition of the two-child benefit cap, expected to lift 450,000 children out of poverty.

You should resign, says Badenoch

Tory leader Kemi Badenoch accused her of “hiking taxers on workers, pensioners, and savers to pay for handouts”, claiming the budget will increase benefits for 560,000 families by £5,000 on average.

Ms Reeves had sought to cut the welfare bill earlier this year, but the government was forced into a damaging retreat after backbench Labour MPs rebelled.

“What she could have chosen today is to bring down welfare spending and get more people into work,” Ms Badenoch told the Commons on Wednesday.

“Instead, she has chosen to put a tax up to tax after tax.”

She called on the chancellor to resign.

From our experts:
Ed Conway: This was a historic budget
Beth Rigby: Labour’s credibility might be shot
Sam Coates: It’s not clear if Reeves will survive

Under fire from left and right

Labour MPs cheered raucously at the two-child benefit cap announcement, but one backbencher told Sky News: “We are effectively doing government by consent of the PLP, if not the cabinet – a bad place to be.

“The Tories did it for years, and it can only lead to the death of us at the general election.”

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey, meanwhile, warned Ms Reeves cannot “tax her way to growth”, while Reform’s Nigel Farage described the budget as an “assault on ambition and saving”.

Greens leader Zack Polanski criticised the budget for not raising taxes on the “super wealthy”.

Read more: A town that feels betrayed

Sky’s Sophy Ridge and Wilfred Frost won’t be the only ones putting the chancellor under more scrutiny today – two influential economic think tanks will also give their full verdicts.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) and the left-leaning Resolution Foundation have already been critical in their immediate verdicts, with the former describing the budget as “spend now, pay later”, with tax rises being increasingly relied upon over time.

It also accused Ms Reeves of breaching Labour’s manifesto commitments on tax.

The Resolution Foundation warned of a hit to living standards because of Ms Reeves’s measures, though she has said policies aimed at cutting household energy bills and freezing rail fares and prescription charges will help people.

She also claimed her decisions would help cut NHS waiting lists and the national debt.

Also facing more questions today is the head of the OBR, as he remains under pressure over how its forecast of the chancellor’s announcements were published ahead of time.

Follow live updates on the fallout from the budget in the Politics Hub and Money through the day.

Rachel Reeves has said she recognises she is “asking ordinary people to pay a little bit more” after she announced £26bn worth of tax rises in her budget – including extending the freeze on personal income thresholds.

However, the chancellor also told Sky News political editor Beth Rigby that she had “managed to keep that contribution as low as I possibly can by closing loopholes and asking those with the broadest shoulders to pay more”.

The package contains a new “mansion tax” on properties worth over £2m, while people paying into their pension pot under salary sacrifice schemes will face national insurance on contributions above £2,000.

In a win for Labour MPs, the two-child benefit cap will be scrapped from April, costing £3bn by 2029/30.

Spending is set to rise by £11bn overall by this date, with a big chunk of this money funding policy U-turns on welfare.

The chancellor also announced:

• New taxes on the gambling industry to raise more than £1bn;

• A new mileage tax for electric vehicles from April 2028;

• The amount you can save in a tax-free cash ISA has been slashed from £20,000 to £12,000, except for over 65s;

• The 5p cut in fuel duty will remain in place until September 2026, when it will be reversed through a staggered approach.

Read More: The budget key points at a glance

The measures, which were published by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) ahead of time in an unprecedented blunder, will take the UK’s tax burden to an all-time high of 38% of GDP in 2030-31, the fiscal watchdog said.

Ms Reeves blamed Brexit and the Tories’ legacy, saying her choices would lead to a “fairer, stronger, more secure Britain”.

👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈

She told Rigby she acknowledged the changes “have a cost for working people”, but twice refused to say she had broken Labour’s manifesto promise not to increase income tax, national insurance and VAT.

But Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said the budget was a “total humiliation”, given the chancellor promised that her £40bn tax raising budget last year would be a once-in a parliament event.

Ms Badenoch said: “Last year we had the horrors of the Halloween Budget. This year it’s the Nightmare Before Christmas. And as for her, she’s the unwelcome Christmas guest, 10 minutes through the door and and she’s eaten all the Quality Street.”

What does the freeze on income tax thresholds mean?

The freeze on tax thresholds, introduced by the Conservatives in 2021, was due to end by 2028.

Ms Reeves has extended it for another three years, in a move which will raise an estimated £8bn for the exchequer in 2029-2030 by dragging some 1.7 million people into a higher tax band.

The chancellor previously said she would not freeze thresholds as it would “hurt working people”.

However she was left with a fresh fiscal blackhole of around £30bn after the OBR downgraded its growth forecasts for the UK economy in each year from 2026 to 2029.

The “mansion tax” will raise £0.4bn in 2029-30, while charging national insurance on salary-sacrificed pension contributions, to take effect from 2029, is estimated to raise £4.7bn, the OBR said.

A further £2.1bn will be raised through increasing tax rates on dividends, property and savings income by two percentage points.

The measures mean the amount of headroom the government has against the chancellor’s day-to-day spending rule that prevents her from borrowing will widen to £21.7bn, almost £12bn more than March.

Package of small tax rises

Read More: What the budget means for your money

Some policies announced today have previously been confirmed by the government, including a “milkshake tax”, a rise in the national minimum wage, the freezing of rail fares and powers for local mayors to impose a tourism tax.

Further spending announcements include free training for apprentices under 25 at small and medium-sized companies, £5m for secondary school libraries and £18m to improve playgrounds in England.

There have also been spending cuts, including a cut to VAT discount for ride-hailing apps like Uber – something critics have branded a “taxi tax” – while a scheme to help disabled people with the cost of a car will no longer offer “luxury vehicles”.

The budget was seen as a big test for Sir Keir Starmer, who has faced threats of a leadership challenge if Labour’s polling doesn’t improve.

Labour MPs on side – for now

Patrick Hurley, the Labour MP for Southport, told Sky News the package was “much stronger than I was expecting”.

He added: “Very good news on child poverty, gambling taxes and mansion taxes. A lot done, and a lot still to do after 14 years of declining living standards under a succession of dreadful Tory PMs. But I’ve left the Chamber in a much happier mood than when I walked in at 11.30.”

John McDonnell, A veteran left wing MP within Labour’s Socialist Campaign Group (SCG), said removing the two-child cap was a “major win” for colleagues who had pushed for the move.

However he said Ms Reeves’ tax increases on wealth don’t go far enough, with the freeze on tax thresholds offsetting other measures aimed at increasing disposable income and resulting in living standards remaining “at a standstill”.

In a message to the SCG he said: “Despite the policy changes we have secured today on child poverty and taxation of wealth it does frustratingly point to the last 18 months being wasted when with our majority we could have done so much more to address the poverty and inequality that scars our community and put money in people’s pockets to drive economic growth.”

Prince Harry and six other household names are suing the publishers of the Daily Mail newspaper over alleged unlawful information gathering dating back 30 years.

The case has been ongoing since 2022 and is just one of several Harry has filed against media organisations since 2019 over alleged breaches of privacy, unlawful practices and false stories.

Associated Newspapers (ANL) – which also publishes The Mail on Sunday and MailOnline – strongly denies any wrongdoing.

A full trial is not expected to start at London’s High Court until January, but a pre-trial hearing, which helps manage the case and resolve any outstanding issues, is set to take place today.

Here is everything you need to know about the case.

What’s alleged?

The alleged unlawful acts are said to have taken place from 1993 to 2011, including the publisher hiring private investigators to secretly place listening devices inside cars and homes and paying police officials for inside information.

When bringing the lawsuit in 2022, lawyers for the claimants said they had become aware of “highly distressing” evidence revealing they had been victims of “abhorrent criminal activity” and “gross breaches of privacy” by Associated Newspapers.

Associated Newspapers denies the allegations, describing them as “preposterous smears”, and claims the legal action is “a fishing expedition by [the] claimants and their lawyers”.

The accusations include:

• The hiring of private investigators to secretly place listening devices inside people’s cars and homes;

• The commissioning of individuals to surreptitiously listen into and record people’s live, private telephone calls while they were taking place;

• The payment of police officials, with corrupt links to private investigators, for inside, sensitive information;

• The impersonation of individuals to obtain medical information from private hospitals, clinics, and treatment centres by deception;

• The accessing of bank accounts, credit histories and financial transactions through illicit means and manipulation.

Who else is involved?

While Prince Harry is one of the key players, as a group litigation, he is not the only claimant.

The others include:

• Actress Elizabeth Hurley
• Actress Sadie Frost
• Sir Elton John and his husband, filmmaker David Furnish
• Baroness Doreen Lawrence, mother of Stephen Lawrence
• Former Liberal Democrat politician Sir Simon Hughes

They all allege they have been victims of “abhorrent criminal activity” and “gross breaches of privacy” by ANL.

David Sherborne is the lawyer representing all the claimants.

What happened in 2023?

During a preliminary hearing in March 2023, Judge Matthew Nicklin was tasked with ruling whether the case can proceed to trial.

ANL had asked for the case to be struck out entirely, arguing the legal challenges against it were brought “far too late”, but David Sherborne called for the publisher’s application to be dismissed.

Lawyers for the publishers said the claims fell outside the statute of limitations – a law indicating that privacy claims should be brought with six years – and the claimants should have known, or could have found out, they had a potential case before October 2016.

They also argued some aspects of the cases should be thrown out as they breach orders made by Lord Justice Leveson as part of his 2011 inquiry into media standards.

During the hearing, a number of the claimants attended the High Court, including Prince Harry, to the surprise of the British media.

Witness statements from all seven claimants were also released. The duke’s statement said he is bringing the claim “because I love my country” and remains “deeply concerned” by the “unchecked power, influence and criminality” of the publisher.

“If the most influential newspaper company can successfully evade justice, then in my opinion the whole country is doomed,” he said.

On 10 November 2023, Mr Justice Nicklin gave the go-ahead for the case to go to trial, saying ANL had “not been able to deliver a ‘knockout blow’ to the claims of any of these claimants”.

What’s happened since?

Earlier this year, lawyers for the claimants sought to amend their case to add a swathe of new allegations for the trial.

They argued that they should be allowed to rely on evidence that they said showed the Mail was involved in targeting Kate, the Princess of Wales.

However, Mr Justice Nicklin ruled this allegation was brought too late before trial.

In a further development in November, the High Court heard that a key witness in the case, private investigator Gavin Burrows, claimed his signature on a statement confirming alleged hacking had taken place, was forged.

In the statement from 2021, Mr Burrows allegedly claimed to have hacked voicemails, tapped landlines, and accessed financial and medical information at the request of a journalist at the Mail On Sunday.

The statement was important, as five of the seven claimants involved in the case told the court they embarked on legal action against ANL based on evidence apparently obtained by Mr Burrows.

Mr Burrows previously retracted his statement in 2023, but the court heard he reiterated the denial to ANL’s lawyers in September this year.

It is now up to the claimant’s lawyer Mr Sherborne to decide if he still wants to call Mr Burrows as a witness for the trial.

Mr Justice Nicklin previously said if Mr Burrows gave evidence that was inconsistent with the evidence they had obtained, then he could apply to treat him as “hostile”.

Could the case end before going to trial?

In short, yes.

During pre-trial reviews, cases can either be settled or dismissed from court in both civil and criminal cases, meaning no trial will take place.

This happened in Harry’s case against News Group Newspapers (NGN), which publishes The Sun. The duke made similar accusations about NGN, which involved unlawful information gathering by journalists and private investigators.

Before an up-to 10-week trial began earlier this year, it was announced both sides had “reached an agreement” and that NGN had offered an apology to Harry and would pay “substantial damages”.

The settlement was reported to be worth more than £10m, mostly in legal fees.

Another of Harry’s legal cases, this time against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) over accusations of historical phone hacking, did go to trial.

The trial saw Harry take to the witness box, making him the first senior royal to give evidence in a courtroom since the 19th century.

In December 2023, the Honourable Mr Justice Fancourt concluded that the duke’s phone had been hacked “to a modest extent” between 2003 and 2009, and 15 of 33 articles he complained about were the product of unlawful techniques.

He was awarded £140,600 in damages. During a further hearing in February 2024 a settlement was reached between Harry and MGN over the remaining parts of his claim.

If the ANL trial does go ahead early next year, it is unknown if Harry will travel to London to attend.