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.
MSPs have voted to abolish Scotland’s controversial not proven verdict.
The Scottish government’s flagship Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill was passed on Wednesday following a lengthy debate of more than 160 amendments that began the day before.
The new legislation makes a series of changes to the justice system, including scrapping the not proven verdict; establishing a specialist sexual offences court; creating a victims and witnesses commissioner; reforming the jury process to require a two-thirds majority for conviction; and implementing Suzanne’s Law which will require the parole board to take into account if a killer continues to refuse to reveal where they hid their victim’s body.
Following Royal Assent, the legislation will be implemented in phases.
Image: Justice Secretary Angela Constance and First Minister John Swinney. Pic: PA
Justice Secretary Angela Constance said: “This historic legislation will put victims and witnesses at the heart of a modern and fair justice system.
“By changing culture, process and practice across the system, it will help to ensure victims are heard, supported, protected and treated with compassion, while the rights of the accused will continue to be safeguarded.
“This legislation, which builds on progress in recent years, has been shaped by the voices of victims, survivors, their families and support organisations, and it is testimony to their tireless efforts to campaign for further improvement.
More on Scotland
Related Topics:
“I am grateful to those who bravely shared their experiences to inform the development of this legislation and pave a better, more compassionate path for others.”
Not proven verdict
Currently, juries in Scotland have three verdicts open to them when considering the evidence after a trial, and can find an accused person either guilty or not guilty, or that the case against them is not proven.
Like not guilty, the centuries-old not proven verdict results in an accused person being acquitted.
Critics have argued it can stigmatise a defendant by appearing not to clear them, while failing to provide closure for the alleged victim.
Notable cases which resulted in a not proven verdict include Sir Hugh Campbell and Sir George Campbell, who were tried for high treason in 1684 for being present at the Battle of Bothwell Bridge.
The murder of Amanda Duffy, 19, in South Lanarkshire in 1992 sparked a national conversation around the existence of the not proven verdict and double jeopardy rules.
Suspect Francis Auld stood trial but the case was found not proven by a jury and an attempt to secure a retrial failed in 2016. Auld died the following year.
In 2018, a sexual assault case against former television presenter John Leslie was found not proven.
And in 2020, former first minister Alex Salmond was found not guilty on 12 sexual assault charges, while one charge of sexual assault with intent to rape was found not proven.
Victim Support Scotland (VSS) had earlier urged MSPs to put aside party politics and vote “for the intention of the bill”.
Kate Wallace, chief executive of VSS, believes the act is a “solid foundation” on which to build further improvements.
She added: “The passing of this act represents a momentous occasion for Scotland’s criminal justice system.
“It marks a significant step towards creating a system that considers and prioritises the needs of people impacted by crime.”
VSS worked with the families of Arlene Fraser and Suzanne Pilley to spearhead Suzanne’s Law.
Ms Fraser was murdered by estranged husband Nat Fraser in 1998, while Ms Pilley was killed by David Gilroy in 2010. To date, the women’s bodies have never been recovered.
Before the bill, parole board rules dictated that a killer’s refusal to disclose the information “may” be taken into account.
The new legislation means parole boards “must” take the refusal to cooperate into account.
Image: (L-R) Suzanne’s Law campaigners Isabelle Thompson and Carol Gillies, the mum and sister of Arlene Fraser, alongside Gail Fairgrieve and Sylvia Pilley, the sister and mum of Suzanne Pilley. Pic: PA
Carol Gillies, sister of Ms Fraser, and Gail Fairgrieve, sister of Ms Pilley said: “We have done everything possible to make this change to parole in memory of Arlene and Suzanne, and for other people who have lost their lives in such a horrific way.
“For our families, the passing of this act and the change to parole are momentous.”
The Scottish Conservatives and Scottish Labour voted against the bill.
Although in support of the abolition of the not proven verdict, the Scottish Tories said they had been left with no alternative but to oppose the bill after the SNP rejected a series of amendments.
The party had called for a Scotland-only grooming gangs inquiry; wanted victims to be told if a decision was taken not to prosecute an accused; and for all victims to be informed if a plea deal was struck between defence and prosecution lawyers.
They also wanted Suzanne’s Law to be strengthened, which would have compelled killers to reveal the location of their victim’s body or risk having their parole rejected – ensuring “no body, no release”.
MSP Liam Kerr, shadow justice secretary, said: “This half-baked bill sells the victims of crime desperately short.
“By ignoring many of the key demands of victims’ groups, the SNP have squandered the chance for a long overdue rebalancing of Scotland’s justice system.
“The Scottish Conservatives’ common sense amendments would have given this legislation real teeth but, by rejecting them, the nationalists have delivered a victims’ bill in name only.
“While we back the abolition of the not proven verdict, the SNP’s intransigence on a number of key issues meant we could not support this bill in its final form.”