On the one hand, Keir Starmervowed there would be “no return to austerity” under his government, while also insisting he had “no plans” to raise taxes beyond an £8bn raid on private equity, oil and gas companies, private school fees and non-doms to pay for more teachers and NHS appointments.
In reality, whoever won the election faced tens of billions of pounds in tough choices over tax and spending. But instead of levelling with us, the two main parties embarked in a “conspiracy of silence” in order to win votes.
On Wednesday, the truth will out, in a budget which will define Sir Keir Starmer’s first term in a way his manifesto did not.
There will be huge tax rises and there will be changes in the fiscal rules to allow the chancellor to borrow more to invest in Britain’s crumbling infrastructure.
And we will finally find out which “working people” are the ones Sir Keir Starmer wants to protect as small and big businesses, property owners, shareholders – and perhaps “Middle England” too – braces itself for tax rises, and the government braces itself for the fall-out.
The prime minister set the hare running on who’s in the firing line for tax rises last week at the Commonwealth Heads of Government summit in Samoa when he told me “working people” were those who “go out and earn their living, usually paid in a sort of monthly cheque” but they did not have the ability to “write a cheque to get out of difficulties”.
Advertisement
He told me explicitly that “working people” who also owned assets, such as property or shares, did not fit his definition.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:49
What to expect from the budget
So business owners, property owners and Middle England do have some cause for alarm.
The pledge to “not increase national insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of income tax, or VAT” has been tweaked in recent weeks to a promise to “protect the payslips of working people”.
In another blow to employers, but a win for those struggling on low wages, Labour have also announced a 6.7% increase in the National Living Wage for over three millions workers next year, amounting to a pay boost worth £1,400-a-year for an eligible full-time worker.
Is this the moment the manifesto is revealed as a sham? Labour insiders insist not and point, again, to the “£22bn black hole” in the current financial year they discovered when their took office – and which ratchets up to a £40bn gap in the public finances over the course of the parliament – that they now have to plug.
Politically, they hope to blame the big tax rises and borrowing on the economic inheritance left to them by the Tories and buy some space with voters.
As one senior government figure put it to me: “The scale of the economic inheritance is bigger than thought and it has blown a political and economic hole in our first few months.”
This will be a message Rachel Reeves will want to land at the despatch box on Wednesday. But a public disillusioned with politicians might not see it like that as they watch a Labour chancellor, flanked by a prime minister who promised the opposite in the election, embark on a massive round of tax rises that but months ago they were told were not coming down the tracks.
Image: Ms Reeves is set to deliver the budget from 12.30pm. Pic: Treasury
Insiders acknowledge this is going to be a tax and spend budget that goes far beyond what we were told to expect when Labour were asking for votes.
But they hope what they can do with this big moment is to take it beyond the winners and losers and frame this first Labour budget in over 14 years as “forging a new settlement” for the people and the country.
To that end, this will be the “fixing the foundations and change” budget: “This is a new economic settlement from a government willing to investment and, in particular, borrow to invest, and that is a change and it will show a path towards long term growth.”
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Because, as we drill into who is a working person, and who is going to be hit with tax raises in this budget, there will also be a big story tomorrow about billions of investment in our country’s energy and transport infrastructure, into housing and hospitals and schools.
“If we get it right, on the evening of the budget, we want to be able to show that we protected your pay slip, are fixing the NHS and investing to rebuild Britain,” one senior figure explains. “What’s the alternative? Choice is going to feature very heavily in the chancellor’s speech. We have made our choices and we are asking business and the wealthiest to pay a bit more to grow our economy and protecting working people.”
And this new settlement, when it lands tomorrow, will be massive. The Chancellor Rachel Reeves intends to change her borrowing rules to allow up to £53bn more in borrowing to be spent on public services and infrastructure.
Trailing the decision at the International Monetary Fund summit in Washington last week, the chancellor said she was making the change in order to take opportunities for the economy “in industries from life sciences to carbon capture, storage and clean energy to AI and technology”, as well as using borrowing to “repair our crumbling schools and hospitals”.
The danger for the chancellor is that what actually comes out the other side is anger over tax rises not flagged in the manifesto, or accusations that the government is being Janus-faced if it claims it’s protecting working people should it also, as speculated, extend the freeze on income tax thresholds beyond the 2028 deadline set by the last government, which would drag millions of workers into higher tax bands (and raise as much as £7bn a year for the government).
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
How might the middle classes and wealthier voters respond to their incomes being squeezed? And how might business respond to being asked to pay billions more in taxes from a government that has been banging on about being pro-business for months?
It is going to be a difficult sell, no doubt. But this government is calculating that short-term pain now will translate into gains in the medium to long-term if Reeves can pull it off and kick-start economic growth.
The hope is that come the next Labour manifesto, the pledges on the NHS, economy, better housing and jobs have been met and the public can forgive the tax rises foisted on them to get there.
Starmer talked endlessly about it being a change election and it will be this be this budget, not his manifesto, that proves the point.
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.