Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey has called for a tax on the wealthiest instead of cutting support for “struggling pensioners”.
Speaking after arriving at the Lib Dem conference in Brighton on a jet ski, Sir Ed said his party is the only one offering up a solution on how to “plug the awful financial mess the Conservatives left us with”.
More than 10 million pensioners will lose winter fuel payments under government plans which have been heavily criticised by opposition MPs, some Labour MPs and charities.
Sir Ed told Sky News he would have levied a capital gains tax against the wealthiest instead.
Image: Sir Ed Davey arrived at the Lib Dem conference in Brighton on a jet ski. Pic: PA
“The Conservatives won’t admit there’s a problem, there is a problem, the financial deficit is large, the Conservatives ran the budget in a very bad way, there needs to be a solution to that,” he said.
“But withdrawing winter fuel payments from struggling pensioners isn’t the solution so we’ve put forward in the House of Commons our solution.
“We’ve said, look at the capital gains tax on the very, very wealthiest.
More on Liberal Democrats
Related Topics:
“So there are alternatives to this. The government doesn’t have to do this.
“It has to clear up the Conservatives’ mess. But there are other ways, much fairer ways to do that.”
Advertisement
Image: Sir Ed continued carrying out stunts as he arrived in Brighton
Sir Ed said his party would also reverse the tax cut the Conservatives gave banks “to deal with the deficit and avoid these painful policies”.
He said it is possible to give the winter fuel payments to all but the wealthiest pensioners and this has been done before with child benefit.
“But that’s not what the government are proposing,” he added.
“We’re going to be the best opposition in parliament, far better than the Conservatives by being constructive, by putting forward alternatives,” Sir Ed said.
“And I think we’re the only group of people doing that, saying this is where you should get the money from to plug the awful financial mess left by the Conservatives.
Labour’s first conference as a party of government in more than a decade was always going to be a carefully calibrated affair.
Too much celebration and jubilation a likely no-no, given the sombre picture Sir Keir Starmer has been painting since moving into Downing Street.
But the party probably hoped to avoid a full-on union showdown.
And yet, that looks to be on the horizon.
The motion being submitted by Unite is scathing – lashing out at the decision to cut winter fuel payments and squaring up to the current gloomy tone being adopted by the government.
Last week’s Commons vote saw just a limited rebellion among MPs.
If this motion makes it to the conference floor, members may not be so loyal to their leader.
That’s not to say any of this should – or will – bother Downing Street.
With a huge majority in parliament, Sir Keir Starmer can afford to rile a few allies now.
Providing he can get them back on side before 2029.
The union’s motion calls the cuts “cruel” and goes on to say: “We need a vision where pensioners are not the first to face a new wave of cuts.”
Lawmakers in the US states of Minnesota and Alabama filed companion bills to identical existing bills that if passed into law, would allow each state to buy Bitcoin.
The Minnesota Bitcoin Act, or HF 2946, was introduced to the state’s House by Republican Representative Bernie Perryman on April 1, following an identical bill introduced on March 17 by GOP state Senator Jeremy Miller.
Meanwhile, on the same day in Alabama, Republican state Senator Will Barfoot introduced Senate Bill 283, while a bi-partisan group of representatives led by Republican Mike Shaw filed the identical House Bill 482, which allows for the state to invest in crypto, but essentially limits it to Bitcoin (BTC).
Twin Alabama bills don’t explicitly name Bitcoin
Minnesota’s Bitcoin Act would allow the state’s investment board to invest state assets in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies and permit state employees to add crypto to retirement accounts.
It would also exempt crypto gains from state income taxes and give residents the option to pay state taxes and fees with Bitcoin.
The twin Alabama bills don’t explicitly identify Bitcoin, but would limit the state’s crypto investment into assets that have a minimum market value of $750 billion, a criterion that only Bitcoin currently meets.
26 Bitcoin reserve bills now introduced in the US
Introducing identical bills is not uncommon in the US and is typically done to speed up the bicameral legislative process so laws can pass more quickly.
Bills to create a Bitcoin reserve have been introduced in 26 US states, with Arizona currently the closest to passing a law to make one, according to data from the bill tracking website Bitcoin Laws.
Arizona currently leads in the US state Bitcoin reserve race. Source: Bitcoin Laws
Pennsylvania was one of the first US states to introduce a Bitcoin reserve bill, in November 2024. However, the initiative was reportedly eventually rejected, with similar bills also killed in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming.
Montana, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota and Wyoming are the five states thathave rejected Bitcoin reserve initiatives. Source: Bitcoin Laws
According to a March 3 report by Barron’s, “red states” like Montana have faced setbacks to the Bitcoin reserve initiatives amid political confrontations between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.
Update (April 3, 5:43 am UTC): This article has been updated to add information on the STABLE Act and GENIUS Act.
The US House Financial Services Committee has passed a Republican-backed stablecoin framework bill, which will now head to the House floor for a full vote.
The Committee passed the Stablecoin Transparency and Accountability for a Better Ledger Economy, or STABLE Act, with a 32-17 vote on April 2, with six Democrats voting in favor.
The bill was introduced on Feb. 6 by committee Chair French Hill and the chair of its Digital Assets Subcommittee, Bryan Steil — reportedly drafted with the help of the world’s largest stablecoin issue, Tether.
The bill would provide rules around payment stablecoins, a crypto token tied to a currency such as the US dollar, and aims to ensure issuers give information about their business and how they back their tokens.
During an earlier markup session, the committee’s leading Democrat, Maxine Waters, who later voted against the bill, criticized her Republican peers for “setting an unacceptable and dangerous precedent” with the STABLE Act.
She said President Donald Trump could use the bill to allow his family’s stablecoin to be used in government payments, and argued the bill validates Trump “and his insiders’ efforts to write rules of the road that will enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else.”
In late March, the Trump family’s World Liberty Financial crypto venture launched a stablecoin, World Liberty Financial USD (USD1). Meanwhile, the US Housing Department, which oversees social housing, was reportedly looking to experiment with using stablecoins for some of its functions.
Stablecoin GENIUS Act also weaves through Congress
Other stablecoin-related bills are also working their way through Congress, including the Republican-led Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins, or GENIUS Act, which lays out oversight and reserve rules for issuers.
The US Senate Banking Committee voted through the GENIUS Act in an 18-6 vote on March 13, after Senator Bill Hagerty, one of the bill’s co-sponsors, updated it following consultation with the Committee’s Democrats.
Before the vote, Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand said the updated GENIUS Act made “significant improvements to a number of important provisions” in areas such as consumer protections and authorized stablecoin issuers.
Both the STABLE Act and GENIUS Act will now wait until debate time on the floor of the House and Senate, respectively, before they head for a floor vote.
Crypto journalist Eleanor Terrett reported on X that two unnamed crypto lobbyists said there is likely to be “a coordinated push behind the scenes over the next few weeks to get the two bills to mirror each other, as there are still some differences between them.”
Doing so would “avoid having to set up a so-called conference committee which is formed so members from both chambers can negotiate to create a final version of the bill everyone agrees on,” she added.
Tulip Siddiq has told Sky News her “lawyers are ready” to handle any formal questions about allegations she is involved in corruption in Bangladesh.
Asked whether she regrets apparent links with the Bangladeshi Awami League political party, Ms Siddiq said “why don’t you look at my legal letter and see if I have any questions to answer… [the Bangladeshi authorities] have not once contacted me and I’m waiting to hear from them”.
Lawyers acting for Ms Siddiq wrote to the Bangladeshi Anti Corruption Commission (ACC) several weeks ago saying the allegations were “false and vexatious”.
The letter said the ACC must put questions to Ms Siddiq “by no later than 25 March 2025” or “we shall presume that there are no legitimate questions to answer”.
More on Bangladesh
Related Topics:
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:45
Staff from the NCA visited Bangladesh as part of initial work to support the interim government in the country.
In a post online today, the former minister said the deadline had expired and the authorities had not replied.
Sky News has approached the Bangladeshi government for comment.
The allegations against Ms Siddiq are focused on links to her aunt Sheikh Hasina – who served as the prime minister of Bangladesh for 20 years.
She is accused of becoming an autocrat, with politically-motivated arrests, extra-judicial killings and other abuses allegedly happening on her watch. Hasina claims it’s all a political witch hunt.
Ms Siddiq was found to have lived in several London properties that had links back to the Awami League political party that her aunt still leads.
She referred herself to the prime minister’s standards adviser Sir Laurie Magnus who said he had “not identified evidence of improprieties” but added it was “regrettable” Ms Siddiq had not been more alert to the “potential reputational risks” of the ties to her aunt.
Ms Siddiq said continuing in her role would be “a distraction” for the government but insisted she had done nothing wrong.