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.
Today, the truth will out, in a budget which will define Sir Keir Starmer’s first term in a way his manifesto did not.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:49
What to expect from the budget
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”.
He told me explicitly that “working people” who also owned assets, such as property or shares, did not fit his definition.
Advertisement
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
10:04
Sky News questions Starmer on tax rises
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 million 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.
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.”
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 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, will be massive. 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 businesses 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 budget, not his manifesto, that proves the point.
What you need to know is this. The budget has not gone down well in financial markets. Indeed, it’s gone down about as badly as any budget in recent years, save for Liz Truss’s mini-budget.
The pound is weaker. Government bond yields (essentially, the interest rate the exchequer pays on its debt) have gone up.
That’s precisely the opposite market reaction to the one chancellors like to see after they commend their fiscal statements to the house.
In hindsight, perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised.
After all, the new government just committed itself to considerably more borrowing than its predecessors – about £140bn more borrowing in the coming years. And that money has to be borrowed from someone – namely, financial markets.
But those financial markets are now reassessing how keen they are to lend to the UK.
More on Budget 2024
Related Topics:
The upshot is that the pound has fallen quite sharply (the biggest two-day fall in trade-weighted sterling in 18 months) and gilt yields – the interest rate paid by the government – have risen quite sharply.
This was all beginning to crystallise shortly after the budget speech, with yields beginning to rise and the pound beginning to weaken, the moment investors and economists got their hands on the budget documentation.
Advertisement
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:33
Chancellor challenged over gilt yield spike
But the falls in the pound and the rises in the bond yields accelerated today.
This is not, to be absolutely clear, the kind of response any chancellor wants to see after a budget – let alone their first budget in office.
Indeed, I can’t remember another budget which saw as hostile a market response as this one in many years – save for one.
That exception is, of course, the Liz Truss/Kwasi Kwarteng mini-budget of 2022. And here is where you’ll find the silver lining for Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves.
The rises in gilt yields and falls in sterling in recent hours and days are still far shy of what took place in the run up and aftermath of the mini-budget. This does not yet feel like a crisis moment for UK markets.
But nor is it anything like good news for the government. In fact, it’s pretty awful. Because higher borrowing rates for UK debt mean it (well, us) will end up paying considerably more to service our debt in the coming years.
And that debt is about to balloon dramatically because of the plans laid down by the chancellor this week.
And this is where things get particularly sticky for Ms Reeves.
In that budget documentation, the Office for Budget Responsibility said the chancellor could afford to see those gilt yields rise by about 1.3 percentage points, but then when they exceeded this level, the so-called “headroom” she had against her fiscal rules would evaporate.
In other words, she’d break those rules – which, recall, are considerably less strict than the ones she inherited from Jeremy Hunt.
Which raises the question: where are those gilt yields right now? How close are they to the danger zone where the chancellor ends up breaking her rules?
Short answer: worryingly close. Because, right now, the yield on five-year government debt (which is the maturity the OBR focuses on most) is more than halfway towards that danger zone – only 56 basis points away from hitting the point where debt interest costs eat up any leeway the chancellor has to avoid breaking her rules.
Now, we are not in crisis territory yet. Nor can every move in currencies and bonds be attributed to this budget.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Markets are volatile right now. There’s lots going on: a US election next week and a Bank of England decision on interest rates next week.
The chancellor could get lucky. Gilt yields could settle in the coming days. But, right now, the UK, with its high level of public and private debt, with its new government which has just pledged to borrow many billions more in the coming years, is being closely scrutinised by the “bond vigilantes”.
The football financier Keith Harris is spearheading a bid to buy a 45% stake in the Premier League football club Crystal Palace in a deal that could be worth close to £200m.
Sky News has learnt that Mr Harris is advising a group of businessmen including Zechariah Janjua and Navshir Jaffer on an offer to acquire the shareholding from Eagle Football, a vehicle created by American businessman John Textor and owner of a number of major clubs around the world.
Sources said on Thursday that the consortium advised by Mr Harris was a leading contender to buy the stake in the Eagles, although they cautioned that at least one, and possibly two, other parties were also in discussions with Mr Textor.
Mr Harris’s group, which would probably execute its deal through a recently established corporate vehicle called Sportbank, may also require financing from other investors as part of its plans, the sources added.
Eagle Football is said to be hopeful that a deal to offload its Crystal Palace shareholding would value the club, which recorded its first win of the Premier League campaign against Tottenham Hotspur last weekend, at more than £400m.
Stanley Tang, one of the founders of the US-based food delivery company DoorDash, is also understood to have expressed an interest in acquiring Eagle Football’s stake in Crystal Palace.
A spokesman for Mr Tang denied that he was in discussions to buy Eagle Football’s Crystal Palace stake.
More from Money
Mr Textor, who declined to comment, is keen to own a controlling interest in a club in English football’s top flight, and came close to securing a deal to buy Everton during the summer.
Instead, Everton’s long-standing owner agreed a transaction with Dan Friedkin, the owner of Italian Serie A side AS Roma.
Advertisement
Eagle Football’s other footballing interests include Olympique Lyonnais in France, Botafogo, which currently leads Brazil’s top division, and RWD Molenbeek in Belgium.
This week, the holding company issued a statement confirming that it is preparing to file confidentially with US regulators ahead of a public listing in the first quarter of next year.
Sky News revealed in August that Eagle Football had lined up Stifel and TD Cowen, the investment banks, to work on the initial public offering (IPO).
The stake in Crystal Palace is being sold by The Raine Group, which has been involved in recent deals involving Chelsea and Manchester United.
In its statement this week, Eagle Football said it would seek $100m from the sale of shares in the company ahead of an IPO, as well as a further $500m as part of the flotation itself.
It also wants to raise “up to $500m to retire existing senior debt, to be achieved through the sale of its interest in Crystal Palace Football Club and, possibly, the placement of long-term senior notes”.
Collectively, these moves are expected to help Mr Textor achieve an enterprise value for Eagle Football of around $2.3bn (£1.74bn), they said.
In the past, Mr Textor has spoken about his belief that public ownership of football teams provides fans with greater transparency about the running of their clubs.
He has described this as the democratisation of ownership – an issue set to face greater scrutiny now that a bill on football regulation has been reintroduced to parliament by the new Labour government.
Some clubs with listed shares, including Manchester United, have, however, endured a torrid relationship with supporters, partly as a result of their voting rights being controlled by a single dominant shareholder.
The next five years will hurt disposable income and wages will stagnate further following Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ budget, an influential thinktank has said.
Household disposable income, or living standards, will be the worst under any Labour government since 1955 when inflation is factored in, the Resolution Foundation said.
The thinktank also said pay will stagnate in the middle of the parliament as higher inflation lessens pay rises and growth is slowed in an already challenging economic environment.
It will mean that in 2028, pay adjusted for inflation – real wages – is forecast to have grown on average by just £13 a week over the past 20 years, according to analysis from the foundation.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:05
Budget explained in 60 seconds
Previous analysis from the thinktank showed weekly wages had increased by just £16 in 14 years when inflation was factored in.
But the foundation added that households’ disposable income will grow more throughout the five-year parliamentary term than the last – by an expected 0.5% a year, compared to 0.3% under the Conservative government.
Inflation will rise as a result of employers passing on the national insurance contributions to customers, the introduction of VAT on private school fees and the reform of vehicle tax, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) said.
The OBR predicts UK economic growth to be 1.1% in 2024, peaking at 2% in 2025 before falling to 1.85% in 2026, 1.5% in 2027, and 1.5% in 2028 before rising again to 1.6% in the final year of the parliament.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
The focus on boosting growth and increasing public investment was singled out in their comment as was the move to having only one fiscal event, a budget, a year.