Labour said the figure is based on misleading information put out in a “dodgy Tory dossier” and called on Mr Sunak to correct the record.
One of their 11 rebuttals is that the costings rely on “assumptions from special advisors”, rather than an impartial Civil Service assessment.
Sir Keir initially struggled to explain this during a debate that saw the pair repeatedly talk over each other, forcing ITV host Julie Ethcingham to intervene and cut them off.
More from Politics
A snap YouGov poll after the clash suggested Mr Sunak narrowly came out on top – with 51% of the audience believing he fared slightly better than Sir Keir.
X
This content is provided by X, 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 X 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 X cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow X cookies for this session only.
However, Labour’s shadow paymaster general Jonathan Ashworth told Sky’s deputy political editorSam Coates that Labour are leaving the debate “stronger tonight” as he accused Mr Sunak of “lying” about Labour’s tax policies.
Advertisement
“Rishi Sunak out of desperation had to collapse into lying in that debate,” he said,
“We do not have a plan to tax households in the way in which Rishi Sunak described, and we are not putting up income tax, or national insurance and VAT.
“The only party that has made uncosted commitments in this campaign is Rishi Sunak’s party.”
As well as the economy, the pair clashed over the NHS and immigration, with Mr Sunak groaned at and laughed at by the audience on some occasions.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:04
Audience groans over NHS comment during leaders’ debate
The first rumbling of discontent came after the prime minister was asked how long it would take to fix the “broken” health service.
He pointed to the damage done by the COVID pandemic but said “we are now making progress: waiting lists are coming down”.
The Labour leader countered: “They were 7.2 million, they’re now 7.5 million. He says they are coming down and this is the guy who says he’s good at maths.”
Mr Sunak said NHS waiting times are “coming down from when they were higher”, prompting laughter from the audience. He then blamed industrial action, eliciting groans.
“It’s somebody else’s fault,” Sir Keir said.
In another key moment, both were asked directly whether they would use private healthcare if a family member was on a long waiting list for NHS care – with Mr Sunak saying he would and Sir Keir saying he wouldn’t.
Immigration debate gets heated
There was also a heated debate over immigration.
Mr Sunak offered his strongest suggestion yet that he could be willing to leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if the government’s stalled Rwanda deportation plan remains blocked by the courts.
He said: “If I am forced to choose between securing our borders and our country’s security, or a foreign court, I’m going to choose our country’s security every single time.”
Image: Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer during the ITV General Election debate. Pic: ITV/PA
However, he said deportation flights will take off to Rwanda “in July, but only if I’m your prime minister”.
“Stick to our plan and illegal migrants will be on those planes – with Labour they will be out on our streets.”
Sir Keir hit back: “The levels of migration are at record highs – 685,000. It’s never been that high, save in the last year or two.
“The prime minister says it’s too high. Who’s in charge? He’s in charge. He’s the most liberal prime minister we’ve ever had on immigration.”
The Labour leader also said Mr Sunak had “completely failed” to meet his pledge to stop small boats crossing the Channel.
On the issue of the ECHR, he said the UK risked becoming a “pariah” state if it left international conventions.
On tax & the economy: Rishi Sunak claimed Labour’s plans for the country were not costed and would require tax rises of £2,000. He pointed to the Conservatives bringing inflation down, cutting NI and his pledge to cut taxes for pensioners through the “triple lock plus” as
reasons why people should vote for him.
Sir Keir said Mr Sunak’s £2,000 claim was “absolute garbage” and his plans are fully costed. He pointed out the tax burden has risen to the highest level in 70 years under the Tories and used Mr Sunak’s vast personal wealth to suggest he doesn’t understand the cost of living crisis.
On the NHS: Rishi Sunak was groaned at and laughed at for claiming waiting lists were coming down and blaming industrial action on the backlog.
Sir Keir pointed to Labour’s plans to create 40,000 new appointments while bigging up his credentials as the husband of an NHS worker.
On Education: Rishi Sunak said parents who “work hard” should be allowed to send their children to private schools, in an attack on Labour’s VAT policy.
Sir Keir that one of Labour’s first steps would be to recruit 6,500 teachers to fill gaps, and he “will get rid of the tax break on private schools to pay for it, that’s a tough choice, I do understand that”.
On immigration: Sunak offered his strongest suggestion yet that he could be willing to leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if the government’s stalled Rwanda deportation plan remains blocked by the courts, but said flights should be taking off in July.
Sir Keir said the UK risked becoming a “pariah” state if it left international conventions and pointed to his plan to target criminal people smuggling gangs to stop small boat crossings.
On Climate: Sunak defended his decision to water down policies designed to help the UK reach net zero carbon emissions, saying the targets will still be met, it will cost households less, and maintain the UK’s energy security.
Sir Keir said there was a “huge opportunity” in the renewable energy sphere that would see cheaper bills, energy security for the UK, and more jobs. He said he will deliver clean power by 2030, despite scaling back the initial investment he intended to put forward to get there.
Who came out on top?
The pair dished out their usual attack lines throughout the debate – with Mr Sunak accusing Sir Keir of having no plan and the Labour leader going in on the Tories’ 14-year record in government, particularly highlighting the impact of the Liz Truss mini budget.
A break down of the YouGov polling found that Mr Sunak came out on top in the sections about tax and immigration.
But while he also “won” the debate overall, Sir Keir was victorious in the discussions about the cost of living, the NHS, education, and climate change.
However, in bad news for both leaders, the poll found 60% of people thought the debate was frustrating, compared to 17% who found it helpful and 4% who found it authentic.
X
This content is provided by X, 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 X 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 X cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow X cookies for this session only.
Opposition parties rounded in on the pair following the debate, with the Lib Dems saying “the country deserves better”.
The SNP said Scotland wasn’t mentioned once and the showdown underlined “why the overwhelming majority of voters want an alternative to the abysmal choice between Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer”.
Banking giant JPMorgan Chase’s decision to cut ties with the CEO of Bitcoin payments company Strike is reigniting concerns about a renewed wave of US “debanking,” an issue that haunted the crypto industry during the 2023 banking turmoil.
Jack Mallers, CEO of the Bitcoin (BTC) Lightning Network payments company Strike, said Sunday on X that JPMorgan closed his personal accounts without explanation.
“Last month, J.P. Morgan Chase threw me out of the bank,” Mallers wrote. “Every time I asked them why, they said the same thing: We aren’t allowed to tell you.”
Cointelegraph has contacted JPMorgan Chase for comment.
“Operation Chokepoint 2.0 regrettably lives on,” said US Senator Cynthia Lummis in a Monday X post. Actions like JP Morgan’s “undermine the confidence in traditional banking” while sending the digital asset industry overseas, she said, adding:
“It’s past time we put Operation Chokepoint 2.0 to rest to make America the digital asset capital of the world.”
Other crypto founders, including Caitlin Long of Custodia Bank, said the debanking efforts targeting crypto may persist until January 2026, pending the appointment of a new Federal Reserve governor.
“Trump won’t have the ability to appoint a new Fed governor until January. So, therefore, you can see the breadcrumbs leading up to a potentially big fight,” Long said during Cointelegraph’s Chainreaction daily X show on March 21.
Long’s Custodia Bank was repeatedly targeted by US debanking efforts, which cost the company months of work and “a couple of million dollars,” she said.
The collapse of crypto-friendly banks in early 2023 sparked the first allegations of Operation Chokepoint 2.0, during which at least 30 technology and cryptocurrency founders were reportedly denied access to banking services under the administration of former President Joe Biden.
In August 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order related to debanking, aiming to prevent banks from cutting off services to politically unfavorable industries, including the cryptocurrency sector.
Debanking concerns took another turn in January, when Lummis’s office was contacted by an anonymous whistleblower, alleging that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) was “destroying material” related to Operation Chokepoint 2.0.
“The FDIC’s alleged efforts to destroy and conceal materials from the U.S. Senate related to Operation Chokepoint 2.0 is not only unacceptable, it is illegal,” said Lummis in a letter published on Jan. 16, threatening “swift criminal referrals” if the wrongdoing was uncovered.
Senator Lummis’s open letter to FDIC Chair Marty Gruenberg. Source: Lummis.senate.gov
Traditional financial institutions have long criticized crypto firms for enabling illicit finance. But US banks have themselves paid more than $200 billion in fines over the past two decades for compliance failures, according to data compiled by Better Markets and the Financial Times.
Fines and penalties paid by the six leading US banks over the past 20 years. Source: Better Markets/FT
Bank of America reportedly accounted for about $82.9 billion of those penalties, while JPMorgan Chase paid more than $40 billion.
A new financial law in the United Arab Emirates is set to bring decentralized finance (DeFi) and broader Web3 into regulatory parameters, signaling an important shift for the industry.
The UAE’s new central bank law, Federal Decree Law No. 6 of 2025, introduces “one of the most consequential regulatory shifts” for the crypto industry in the region, Irina Heaver, a local crypto lawyer and founder of NeosLegal, told Cointelegraph.
“It brings protocols, DeFi platforms, middleware, and even infrastructure providers into scope if they enable activities such as payments, exchange, lending, custody, or investment services,” Heaver said.
According to the lawyer, industry projects building or operating in the UAE should treat this as a pivotal regulatory milestone and align their systems before the September 2026 transition deadline.
“We’re just code” is no longer a defence
Issued in the Official Gazette and legally effective since Sept. 16, 2025, the UAE’s Federal Decree Law No. 6 is a central bank law that regulates financial institutions, insurance business as well as digital asset-related activities.
Its key provisions, Article 61 and Article 62, provide a list of activities that require a license from the Central Bank of the UAE (CBUAE), including crypto payments and digital stored value.
“Article 62 states that any person who carries on, offers, issues, or facilitates a licensed financial activity ‘through any means, medium, or technology’ falls under the regulatory perimeter of the CBUAE,” Heaver said.
An excerpt from the UAE’s Federal Decree Law No. 6. Source: CBUAE
In practice, this means DeFi projects can no longer avoid regulation by claiming they are “just code,” the lawyer said, adding that the argument of “decentralization” does not exempt a protocol from compliance.
Protocols that support stablecoins, real-world assets (RWA), decentralized exchange (DEX) functions, bridges, or liquidity routing “may require a license,” Heaver said. The enforcement is already active, she added, with penalties for unlicensed activity including fines of up to 1 billion dirhams ($272.3 million) and potential criminal sanctions.
The law does not ban self-custody
As the UAE’s new central bank law is directly related to providing “stored value services,” the legislation is likely to affect cryptocurrency wallet providers, Kokila Alagh, founder and managing partner of Karm Legal Consultants, told Cointelegraph.
According to Alagh, there has been a “fair bit of confusion” around whether the law affects self-custody, or non-custodial wallets, which are designed to enable users to store their assets independently from any third party.
Although some industry observers like Trading Strategy’s Mikko Ohtamaa have suggested that the law translates to the “de facto ban” of crypto and self-custodial wallet apps in the UAE, Alagh and Heaver said that’s not the case.
An excerpt from the UAE’s Federal Decree Law No. 6. Source: CBUAE
“The law does not ban self-custody, nor does it restrict individuals from using their own wallets,” Alagh said, adding that it “simply expands” the regulatory perimeter for companies.
“If a wallet provider enables payments, transfers, or other regulated financial services for UAE users, licensing requirements may apply,” she noted.
Alagh mentioned that Karm Legal has received a significant number of queries regarding the issue, adding:
“Further clarification from the Central Bank is expected as the law moves through implementation, but for now, individuals remain unaffected while companies should assess whether their activities fall within regulated scope.”
Ironically, Ohtamaa’s post specifically criticized UAE lawyers, arguing that their business is “free of interest in the UAE.”
“For independent law firms, anything that makes the UAE less attractive for crypto is a loss of income, and these lawyers are happy to obfuscate facts and legal texts just to secure their yearly bonuses,” Ohtamaa argued.
Karm Legal’s Alagh told Cointelegraph that the firm is actively following up with CBUAE regarding the issue, but there is no set date for the authority to provide a clarification.
The SEC has just issued its second “no-action letter” toward a decentralized physical infrastructure network (DePIN) crypto project in recent months, giving its native token “regulatory cover” from enforcement.
The no-action letter was sent to the Solana DePIN project Fuse, which issues a network token, FUSE, as a reward to those actively maintaining the network.
Fuse initially submitted a letter to the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance on Nov. 19, asking for official confirmation that it would not recommend the SEC take enforcement action if the project continues to offer and sell FUSE tokens.
Fuse also outlined in its letter that FUSE is designed for network utility and consumptive purposes, not for speculation. They can only be redeemed for an average market price via third parties.
“Based on the facts presented, the Division will not recommend enforcement action to the Commission if, in reliance on your opinion as counsel, Fuse offers and sells the Tokens in the manner and under the circumstances described in your letter,” the Division of Corporation Finance’s deputy chief counsel, Jonathan Ingram, wrote on Monday.
SEC’s no-action letter to Fuse Crypto. Source: SEC
The latest SEC no-action letter comes just a few months after the SEC issued a similar “highly coveted” letter to Double Zero, which was seen as a result of a new, more crypto-friendly leadership at the SEC.
At the time, DoubleZero co-founder Austin Federa said such letters are common in TradFi but are “very rare” in the crypto space.
“It was a months long process, but we found the SEC to be quite receptive, we found them to be quite professional, quite diligent, there was no crypto animosity.”
The SEC was put under new leadership in April, after Paul Atkins was sworn in as the 34th chairman, and the agency has since been seen taking a more balanced approach to crypto. As part of the leadership, crypto-friendly Hester Peirce also heads up the agency’s crypto task force.
SEC no-action letters are a form of regulatory clarity
Adding to the discussion on X, Rebecca Rettig, a legal representative of Solana MEV infrastructure platform Jito Labs, said that no-action letters are sought after by many crypto projects.
“Why do crypto teams want them? ‘Regulatory clarity.’ If you’re planning to issue a token, a NAL provides reasonable assurance you won’t face immediate enforcement for violations of securities laws. It’s a kind of ‘regulatory cover,’” she wrote.
SEC giving a pass to Fuse wasn’t unexpected: Crypto lawyer
The no-action letter doesn’t necessarily set any new precedents, however.
Commenting on the subject via X on Monday, Consensys lawyer Bill Hughes said this was “an easy case,” given the nature of Fuse’s token.
“The take away is that there is not a lawyer in crypto that would have thought this token was a security. And maybe not even any lawyer who is merely familiar with Howey,” Hughes said.
The same month that Double Zero secured its no-action letter, the SEC also issued a similar no-action letter for crypto-custodians that don’t qualify as banks.
While they still have to meet strict conditions, the no-action letter provides clear guidelines for acceptable ways for these types of firms to operate and deal with crypto, something which the industry has been begging for over the past few years.