Civil service to be ordered to cut more than £2bn from budget – as Reeves rules out tax rises in spring statement
The civil service is to be told to cut more than £2bn from its budget as part of the government’s spending review.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves is expected to unveil spending cuts during the spring statement next week – and has reportedly ruled out tax rises.
The FDA union has said the government needs to be honest about the move, first reported by The Telegraph, and the “impact it will have on public services”.
Civil service departments will first have to reduce administrative budgets by 10%, which is expected to save £1.5bn a year by 2028-29.
The following year, the reduction should be 15%, the Cabinet Office will say – a saving of £2.2bn a year.
Administrative budgets include human resources, policy advice and office management, rather than frontline services.
The chancellor has also said she won’t be putting up taxes on Wednesday, telling The Sun On Sunday: “This is not a budget. We’re not going to be doing tax raising.”
Ms Reeves added: “We did have to put up some taxes on businesses and the wealthiest in the country in the budget [in the autumn].
“We will not be doing that in the spring statement next week.”
The chancellor has repeatedly insisted she won’t drop her fiscal rules which preclude borrowing to fund day-to-day spending.
:: Rachel Reeves, Mel Stride and Daisy Cooper appear on Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips from 8.30am
Civil service departments will receive instructions from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Pat McFadden in the coming week, The Telegraph reported.
“To deliver our Plan for Change we will reshape the state so it is fit for the future. We cannot stick to business as usual,” a Cabinet Office source said.
“By cutting administrative costs we can target resources at frontline services – with more teachers in classrooms, extra hospital appointments and police back on the beat.”
The move comes after the government last week revealed welfare cuts it believes will save £5bn a year by the end of the decade.
👉 Click here to listen to Electoral Dysfunction on your podcast app 👈
FDA general secretary Dave Penman said the union welcomed a move away from “crude headcount targets” but that the distinction between the back office and frontline is “artificial”.
“Elected governments are free to decide the size of the civil service they want, but cuts of this scale and speed will inevitably have an impact on what the civil service will be able to deliver for ministers and the country…
“The budgets being cut will, for many departments, involve the majority of their staff and the £1.5bn savings mentioned equates to nearly 10% of the salary bill for the entire civil service.”
Ministers need to set out what areas of work they are prepared to stop as part of spending plans, he said.
“The idea that cuts of this scale can be delivered by cutting HR and comms teams is for the birds. This plan will require ministers to be honest with the public and their civil servants about the impact this will have on public services.”
Read more:
Analysis: UK growth forecast set for major downgrade
What could be announced in the spring statement?
The spring statement – what you need to know
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
What to expect from the spring statement
Mike Clancy, general secretary of the Prospect union, warned that “a cheaper civil service is not the same as a better civil service”.
“Prospect has consistently warned government against adopting arbitrary targets for civil service headcount cuts which are more about saving money than about genuine civil service reform.
“The government say they will not fall into this trap again. But this will require a proper assessment of what the civil service will and won’t do in future.”
The New York State Attorney General’s (NAYG) recent legal action against Galaxy Digital over its promotional ties to the now-collapsed cryptocurrency Terra (LUNA) was unfair and an abuse of the legal system, says SkyBridge Capital and founder Anthony Scaramucci.
“It’s LAWFARE, pure and simple due to an obscure but dangerously powerful New York law known as the Martin Act,” Scaramucci said in a March 28 X post.
Martin Law can “open the door for abuse”
“The law has no need to prove intent, creating a low standard of proof that can open the door for abuse like this. It shouldn’t exist,” he said.
New York’s Martin Act is one of the US’s strictest anti-fraud and securities laws, allowing prosecutors the power to pursue financial fraud cases without needing to prove intent. The NAYG alleged that Galaxy Digital violated the Martin Act over its alleged promotion of Terra, with Galaxy Digital agreeing to a $200 million settlement.
According to NAYG documents filed on March 24, Galaxy Digital acquired 18.5 million LUNA tokens at a 30% discount in October 2020, then promoted them before selling them without abiding by disclosure rules.
Scaramucci reiterated that Galaxy CEO Michael Novogratz was under the impression everything he was saying about Luna was true, as he had been deceived by Terraform Labs and its former CEO, Do Kwon.
Source: Amanda Fischer
Meanwhile, MoonPay president of enterprise, Keith Grossman, said he had never heard of the Martin Act and had to look it up using AI chatbot ChatGPT.
“It is so broad and essentially is the essence of lawfare,” Grossman said. “Sorry you got caught in the crosshairs of it, Mike,” he added.
Related: Sonic unveils high-yield algorithmic stablecoin, reigniting Terra-Luna ‘PTSD’
The filing alleged that Galaxy helped a “little-known” token, referring to LUNA, increase its market price from $0.31 in October 2020 to $119.18 in April 2022 while “profiting in the hundreds of millions of dollars.”
Asset manager and investor Anthony Pompliano said he isn’t familiar with the details of the lawsuit but vouched for Novogratz, calling him a “good man” who has devoted a lot of time and money to helping others.
The Terra collapse is one of the crypto industry’s most infamous failures. In March 2024, SEC attorney Devon Staren said in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York that Terra was a “house of cards” that collapsed for investors in 2022.
Magazine: Arbitrum co-founder skeptical of move to based and native rollups: Steven Goldfeder
Billionaire investor Elon Musk has sold his social media platform X to his AI startup xAI, sparking controversy as it coincides with a US judge rejecting his bid to dismiss a lawsuit tied to the social media platform.
The transfer of ownership of X to xAI on March 28 means that the class-action lawsuit against Musk — accusing him of defrauding former Twitter shareholders by delaying the disclosure of his initial investment in the social media platform — has become “a whole lot spicer,” Cinneamhain Ventures partner Adam Cochran said in a March 28 X post.
Acquisition may open up xAI to more ‘exposure’
On the same day that Musk said “xAI has acquired X in an all-stock transaction,” a US judge reportedly rejected Musk’s attempt to dismiss the lawsuit. Cochran said it has “opened up his AI entity to exposure here too, and it’s a much bigger pie.”
Source: Grok
Musk said the deal values xAI at $80 billion and X at $33 billion, factoring in $12 billion in debt from the $45 billion valuation. He originally bought X, formerly Twitter, for around $44 billion in April 2022.
“xAI and X’s futures are intertwined. Today, we officially take the step to combine the data, models, compute, distribution and talent,” Musk said.
Source: Bryan Rosenblatt
“This combination will unlock immense potential by blending xAI’s advanced AI capability and expertise with X’s massive reach,” he said, adding:
“This will allow us to build a platform that doesn’t just reflect the world but actively accelerates human progress.”
However, Cochran claimed that “Musk used his pumped up xAI stock to pay multiple times over value for X, but still take an $11B loss on the transaction.” He said that Musk is “screwing over xAI investors, and X investors” and was executed to sell user data to xAI.
Related: Elon Musk’s ‘government efficiency’ team turns its sights to SEC — Report
xAI is best known for its AI chatbot “Grok” which is built into the X platform. When Musk released it in November 2023, he claimed it could outperform OpenAI’s first iteration of ChatGPT in several academic tests.
Source: Raoul Pal
Musk explained at the time that the motivation behind building Grok is to create AI tools equipped to assist humanity by empowering research and innovation.
While Cochran said that Grok being valued at $80 billion is an “insanely dumb valuation,” crypto developer “Keef” disagrees. Keef said, “This is shady all around, but given the day, Grok is genuinely probably the top model for various tasks.”
Magazine: Arbitrum co-founder skeptical of move to based and native rollups: Steven Goldfeder
Five Democratic lawmakers in the US Senate have called on leadership at regulatory agencies to consider the potential conflicts of interest from a stablecoin launched by World Liberty Financial (WLFI), the crypto firm backed by US President Donald Trump’s family.
In a March 28 letter from the US Senate Banking Committee, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren and four other Democrats asked the Federal Reserve’s committee chair on supervision and regulation, Michelle Bowman, and acting comptroller of the currency, Rodney Hood, how they intended to regulate WLFI and its stablecoin, USD1.
March 28 letter from five Democratic senators to OCC, Fed leadership. Source: US Senate Banking Committee
The letter came as members of Congress are considering legislation to regulate stablecoins through the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins, or GENIUS Act. The bill, if signed into law, would essentially allow the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and Federal Reserve to oversee stablecoin regulation, including for issuers like WLFI and its USD1 coin.
Trump also signed an executive order in February attempting to have all federal agencies — purportedly including the OCC — “regularly consult with and coordinate policies and priorities” with White House officials, giving the US president unprecedented control.
“President Trump’s involvement in this venture, as he strips financial regulators of their independence and Congress simultaneously considers stablecoin legislation, presents an extraordinary conflict of interest that could create unprecedented risks to our financial system and to the integrity of decisions made by the [Fed and OCC],” said the letter, adding:
“The launch of a stablecoin directly tied to a sitting President who stands to benefit financially from the stablecoin’s success presents unprecedented risks to our financial system.”
Related: Trump’s USD1 stablecoin deepens concerns over conflicts of interest
Since World Liberty launched in September 2024 — months before the US election and Trump’s inauguration — many of the firm’s goals have been shrouded in secrecy. The project’s website notes that Trump and some of his family members control 60% of the company’s equity interests.
As of March 14, World Liberty had completed two public token sales, netting the company a combined $550 million. On March 24, the project confirmed launching its first stablecoin on the BNB Chain and Ethereum. The president’s son, Donald Trump Jr., also pitched USD1 from the DC Blockchain Summit on March 26 with three of WLFI’s co-founders.
Magazine: Trump’s crypto ventures raise conflict of interest, insider trading questions
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports12 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway