Sir Keir Starmer’s been on the other side of the world for most of the week – at the COP30 climate summit in Brazil, his 40th foreign trip in 16 months.

Back home, his government’s credibility has continued its painful unravelling.

Five days on from David Lammy’s disastrous stand-in performance at PMQS, the justice secretary’s ministerial colleagues are still struggling to explain why he repeatedly failed to answer questions on whether another migrant criminal had been released from prison by mistake.

Yes, Conservative MP James Cartlidge got the question wrong, as Brahim Kaddour-Cherif was an illegal migrant, not an asylum seeker.

But Mr Cartlidge argued that because the deputy prime minister failed to divulge the information he did have, he failed to act with full transparency and should be investigated by the PM’s ethics advisor for a possible breach of the ministerial code.

Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy has been defending Mr Lammy’s response.

She told Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips she doesn’t accept that he was being evasive, insisting Mr Lammy had been carefully weighing his words to ensure that “when we do speak about matters of such significance to the public… we do so with care and make sure the full facts are presented”.

At that time, rather extraordinarily, we’re told the justice secretary did not have the full facts of the case, even though the Metropolitan Police had been informed the day before (six days after Kaddour-Cherif was accidentally freed).

How Sky correspondent found escaped prisoner

The combination of wrongly-freed prisoners and illegal migrants is a conjunction of two of the most toxic issues in British politics – the overflowing prison system and the dysfunctional asylum system.

Both are vast, chaotic problems the government is struggling to get a grip on, as the Conservatives also found, to their cost.

But ministers’ ongoing failure to bring both issues under control has only been highlighted by Mr Lammy’s sloppy handling of the situation.

Football regulator donations row

Ms Nandy has herself been at the heart of another government controversy this week – over the appointment of the new football regulator, David Kogan.

An independent investigation found she “unknowingly” breached the code on public appointments by failing to declare that Mr Kogan had previously donated £2,900 to her Labour leadership campaign – and also criticised her department for not highlighting his status as a Labour donor who had previously given £33,410 to the party.

The culture secretary has apologised and explained she had been unaware of the donations.

She also pointed out that Mr Kogan was a candidate originally put forward by the Conservatives. But again, it’s messy.

It’s yet another story which chips away at the government’s promises to clear up politics and act with full transparency and accountability.

Budget blues?

The ultimate breach of trust looks set to come with the budget on 26 November, however.

In an extraordinary early morning speech this week, Chancellor Rachel Reeves signalled that she’s likely to raise taxes in two and a half weeks – and thus breach the core promise of the Labour Party manifesto.

The rationale for her dire warnings on Tuesday was to start explaining why she will probably have to do so – getting in her excuses early about the languishing state of the economy as a result of Brexit, Donald Trump’s tariffs and her inheritance from the Conservatives.

The Tories claim Ms Reeves could sort out the finances by cutting welfare spending – something ministers dramatically failed to do when their efforts at reform were scuttled by angry backbenchers.

Read more:
Govt ‘gripping’ prisons crisis
Denmark migration model backed
Prisons ‘close to breaking point’

Governments breach their manifesto commitments all the time.

But if the chancellor goes ahead and puts up income tax, as expected (even if that’s offset, for some, by a corresponding cut to national insurance), it will be a shock – and the first such increase in 50 years.

The new deputy leader of the party, Lucy Powell, pointedly warned the government this week about the risks of breaching trust in politics by breaking manifesto promises.

Lisa Nandy didn’t shoot her comments down when Sir Trevor asked for her response, arguing instead that while “we take our promises very, very seriously”, they [Labour] “were also elected on a promise to change this country”, with a particular focus on fixing the NHS.

The impossibility of doing both – protecting taxes while also increasing government spending in such a challenging economic climate – highlights the folly of making such restrictive promises.

But voters are not in a forgiving mood.

United States President Donald Trump announced on Sunday that most Americans will receive a $2,000 “dividend” from the tariff revenue and criticized the opposition to his sweeping tariff policies.

“A dividend of at least $2000 a person, not including high-income people, will be paid to everyone,” Trump said on Truth Social.

The US Supreme Court is currently hearing arguments about the legality of the tariffs, with the overwhelming majority of prediction market traders betting against a court approval.

Kalshi traders place the odds of the Supreme Court approving the policy at just 23%, while Polymarket traders have the odds at 21%. Trump asked:

“The president of the United States is allowed, and fully approved by Congress, to stop all trade with a foreign country, which is far more onerous than a tariff, and license a foreign country, but is not allowed to put a simple tariff on a foreign country, even for purposes of national security?”

Investors and market analysts celebrated the announcement as economic stimulus that will boost cryptocurrency and other asset prices as portions of the stimulus flow into the markets, but also warned of the long-term negative effects of the proposed dividend.

Related: Bitcoin faces ‘insane’ sell wall above $105K as stocks eye tariff ruling

The proposed economic stimulus will boost asset markets, but at a steep cost

Investment analysts at The Kobeissi Letter forecast that about 85% of US adults should receive the $2,000 stimulus checks, based on distribution data from the economic stimulus checks during the COVID era.

While a portion of the stimulus will flow into markets and raise asset prices, Kobeissi Letter warned that the ultimate long-term effect of any economic stimulus will be fiat currency inflation and the loss of purchasing power.

“If you don’t put the $2,000 in assets, it is going to be inflated away or just service some interest on debt and sent to banks,” Bitcoin analyst, author, and advocate Simon Dixon said.

“Stocks and Bitcoin only know to go higher in response to stimulus,” investor and market analyst Anthony Pompliano said in response to Trump’s announcement.

Magazine: China will intensify Bitcoin bull run, $1M by 2028: Bitcoin Man, X Hall of Flame