Starmer says budget did not break manifesto tax pledge and scrapping two-child benefit cap was ‘my long-standing ambition’ – live

12.51pm GMT
Starmer rejects claim Labour broke manifesto promise on income tax

In an interview Keir Starmer also rejected suggestions Labour broke its manifesto promise on tax.
When this was put to him, he told Sky News:

We kept to our manifesto in terms of what we’ve promised. But I accept the challenge that we’ve asked everybody to contribute.

But he also defended the need to raise taxes. Explaining why, he told the BBC:

I tell your viewers precisely why that is: to make sure that we can protect our NHS, which needs to be there for them and their families when they need it. Everybody understands that.
We want to make sure that we have got schools which are fit for the future so that every child can go as far as their talent will take them, and I absolutely wanted to bear down and reduce the cost of living, because for most of your viewers that will be the single most important thing.

BREAKING: Sir Keir Starmer has insisted Labour "kept to our manifesto" promises despite raising taxes in the budget - as he asked "everybody to contribute".🔗 Read more https://t.co/RvJTYs2Xg6— Sky News (@SkyNews) November 27, 2025

12.45pm GMT
Starmer brushes off polling showing two-child cap popular, saying no other PM has done as much to end child poverty

In his interviews today Keir Starmer also rejected suggestions that he was only getting rid of the two-child benefit cap to boost his support with the parliamentary Labour party.
When he was asked by Sky’s Beth Rigby if this was the reason for the move, Starmer replied:

It’s impossible to argue that this is a position that has been adopted just in the last few weeks. It is my long-standing ambition.
I’m proud to be the prime minister who has done more on child poverty than any prime minister ever.

BBC’s Chris Mason put it to him that polling suggests keeping the two-child benefit cap would be more popular than getting rid of it. Asked if those in favour of keeping the cap were wrong, Starmer replied:

I think it’s really important that we don’t make children pay the price. I don’t think that, anybody wants to see children growing up in poverty.

He also said three quarters of families affected by the two-child benefit cap are working. “This is the working poor in modern Britain,” he said. “I want to end that.”

Updated at 12.49pm GMT

12.38pm GMT
Starmer rejects claim from organisations like CBI and IFS saying budget shows he's lost interest in promoting growth

Keir Starmer has been defending the budget in interviews with broadcasters while on a visit to a community centre in Rugby. And he has rejected suggestions that the budget showed Labour has lost interest in promoting growth.
In its response to the budget yesterday, the CBI said: “The government’s growth mission is currently stalled.” Today the Institute for Fiscal Studies has made a smiliar point. (See 11.04am.)
But when the BBC’s political editor, Chris Mason, put it to Starmer that the budget would not help growth, Starmer replied:

I’m sorry, growth was predicted at 2025 at 1%. The figures came in yesterday, it is 1.5%.

When it was put to Starmer that 1.5% growth was still not much, he replied:

It is 50% more than was forecast. That is significantly more.

He claimed the government was doing a lot to boost investment.

Updated at 12.46pm GMT

12.37pm GMT

11.38am GMT
Share your views on the new ‘mansion tax’ – and how you might be affected

We are also keen to hear from readers who they think they might be affected by the “mansion tax” proposal announced in the budget yesterday. If you would like to contribute, you can do so here.

Related: Share your views on the new ‘mansion tax’ – and how you might be affected

11.04am GMT
IFS says Reeves should have included more tax reform in budget to help growth

The Institute for Fiscal Studies thinktank has said that Rachel Reeves should have included more tax reform in her budget to deliver growth.
Presenting the IFS’s assessment of the budget, Helen Miller, its director, said:

Growth not only makes us richer, it makes almost every problem easier to solve. At the last budget the chancellor said, “Every budget I deliver will be focused on our mission to growth the economy”. That wasn’t on show yesterday.
It was never going to be possible to do such a large tax rise and have that be good for growth. But – and I am fully aware that I sound like a broken record here – tax reform was the way to ensure that taxes don’t do more damage that necessary. The chancellor, like her predecessors, continues to shy away from meaningful tax reform that could move the dial. This felt mostly like the budget of a government trying to scrape through. Of course, no fiscal event can do everything, and reform is hard. But given the scale of the challenges we face, and given the government’s lofty rhetoric about change, and its ambitions on growth, I think we’re entitled to ask for more.

10.59am GMT
Jury trials will 'always be cornerstone of British justice', minister says, as she claims plan to restrict them not finalised

Earlier this week it emerged that David Lammy, the justice secretary, has written to colleagues saying that he is considering ending jury trials for all prosecutions except those involving people accused of rape or killing someone. Officially, this is just an option being considered, by Rajeev Syal, the Guardian’s home affairs editor, reported this week that Lammy has been gearing up to announce the move in the new year.

Related: David Lammy considers scrapping jury trials for all but the most serious cases

In response to a Commons urgent question on this issue, Sarah Sackman, the courts minister, told MPs this morning that “no final decisisons” have been taken.
She said the government inherited “an emergency” in the criminal courts, and she said a crisis of this scale required “bold action to get the system moving and to deliver swifter justice for victims”.
But she also said:

Let me be clear; jury trials will always be a cornerstone of British justice.

For the Conservatives, Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, said jury trials were “fundamental to the justice system” and should be protected.

10.44am GMT

The Resolution Foundation has now published its budget analysis on its website.
Here is an extract from its verdict.

What the budget lacked was a sense of strategy – and not only strategy in the sense that fiscal purists mean, who will always be disappointed by politicians who have to think about messy things like politics.
The deeper confusion relates to the very recent swerve regarding who should bear the pain of consolidation. A matter of months ago in spring statement, a big part of the chancellor’s answer was disabled people on benefits, in plans that were in many ways regressive. This week, the same chancellor was upfront in asking everyone to pay more, and the best-off to pay even more still. Across the parliament as a whole, policy measures will have a progressive effect on incomes with the poorer half gaining £90 on average against losses of £1,000 for the top half.
And yet after all the swerving, it is hard to know where the chancellor would look for further sacrifices if they should be needed. Unfortunately, the possibility of more tough choices is very real, in an economy in which unemployment has been rising and an early fall is not expected.

10.20am GMT
OBR chair Richard Hughes says he will resign over budget mistake if Reeves and MPs no longer have confidence in him

Richard Hughes, chair of the Office for Budget Responsibility, has said that he will resign if Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, and MPs say they no longer has confidence in him in the light of the mistaken early release yesterday of its budget report.
Speaking at the Resolution Foundation’s post-budget event, Hughes said:

A link to our EFO (Economic and Fiscal Outlook) document was inadvertently made accessible to the public prior to the conclusion of the chancellor’s statement when it is usually published.
It wasn’t published on our website, but there was a link that somebody managed to find, and that made it accessible, and then it was then disseminated. As soon as it was discovered, we took action to take it down.
We take budget security incredibly seriously, which is why this investigation is already under way and will report very swiftly by early next week.
Personally, I serve day-to-day subject to the confidence of the chancellor and the Treasury committee. If they both conclude, in light of that investigation, they no longer have confidence in me then, of course, I will resign, which is what you do when you’re the chair of something called the Office for Budget Responsibility.

10.17am GMT
Ask the Guardian your budget questions

Heather Stewart, the Guardian’s economics editor, and Hilary Osborne, our money and consume editor, will be answering questions from readers about the budget. You can submit one here.

Related: Ask the Guardian your budget questions

10.07am GMT
Annual asylum claims up 13% to 111,000, highest figure on record, Home Office says

The Home Office has also published its quarterly immigration-related figures, covering the year ending in September 2025. These show that 111,000 people claimed asylum in the UK in that period, up 13% in the previous year.
The Home Office says this is even higher than the previous recorded peak, which was 103,000 in 2002.
Half of those claiming asylum arrived through illegal routes, such as on small boats. Others arrived in the UK legally, and then claimed asylum.
The figures also show that the number of asylum claimants waiting for a decision has fallen sharply because the number of claims processed has risen by 31%.

9.50am GMT
Net migration to UK down 69% in year ending June 2025, to 204,000, ONS says

Net migration to the UK was an estimated 204,000 in the 12 months to June 2025, down 69% on the previous year, the Office for National Statistics has said this morning.
The figure, which covers the first year of the Labour government, is the lowest annual figure since 2021, the ONS says in a report.
It says:

At 204,000, long-term international net migration for the year ending (YE) June 2025 was around two-thirds lower than a year earlier (649,000 in YE June 2024). This is similar to the levels we have been seeing since the introduction of the new immigration system, which followed the UK’s leaving the EU. The fall is driven by fewer non-EU+ nationals arriving for work- and study-related reasons and a continued, gradual increase in levels of emigration.

These figures to a large extent reflect the impact of tighter visa regualtions introduced by Rishi Sunak’s government, which have largely been maintained by Labour.

9.43am GMT
Getting rid of two-child benefit cap 'huge victory for the left', says John McDonnell

John McDonnell, who was shadow chancellor when Jeremy Corbyn was Labour leader, told Sky News this morning that the abolition of the two-child benefit cap in the budget was “a huge victory for the left”.
McDonnell was one of seven Labour MPs suspended from the parliamentary party last year because they voted for an SNP amendment to the king’s speech saying the two-child benefit cap should be abolished.
As Sky News reports, McDonnell said he was not interested in getting an apology from the party for the way he and the other rebels were treated. He said he was “really pleased” by the budget announcement and now wanted to “move on now because there’s a lot more to be done”.

9.15am GMT
Reeves dismisses Tory claim that she is raising taxes to fund 'Benefits Street budget'

The Conservative party is attacking the budget on the grounds that Rachel Reeves is putting up taxes supposedly to fund more spending on benefit claimants. Even though the rationale for this claim is questionable, the Tories were making it before the budget was announced, and Kemi Badenoch firmed it up last night, claiming it was a “Benefits Street budget”.
On LBC this morning, asked if the budget meant “alarm clock Britain paying for Benefits Street”, Reeves said she did not accept that. She said 60% of the families that would benefit from the removal of the two-child benefit cap (the most expensive welfare announcement in the budget) were in work.
She went on:

I don’t think children should be punished by this pernicious policy any longer. And the cost to society of this is huge, the cost for councils of temporary accommodation, when people can no longer afford the rent, putting families in B&Bs, kids having to move to school all the time because parents have moved from B&B to another lot of temporary accommodation, and there’s costs for years to come, because all the evidence shows that kids that are growing up poor are less likely to get into work and more reliant on the welfare state in the future for them.
So this is a good investment in those kids, to give them the chances that I want for my kids, and everyone wants for their kids. It also saves money for taxpayers on that accommodation, on those additional health costs, and ensuring that those kids grow up to be productive adults.

According to the budget red book, getting rid of the two-child benefit cap will cost £3.2bn a year by 2030-31.
The decision not to go ahead with the planned cuts to Pip (the personal independence payment – a disability benefit) is also in the red book, and that will cost £5.3bn a year by 2030-31, but that decision was taken in the summer.

8.34am GMT

Robinson finished the interview by asking if Reeves would rule out tax rises in next year’s budget.
Reeves said she would not speculate on that.

8.33am GMT

Q: The CBI said yesterday the government’s growth mission is stalled.
Reeves does not accept that. She refers to firms that are investing. She refers to JP Morgan opening a new office in London, and she says just today Goldman Sachs has said it is doubling the size of its office in Birmingham, to 1,000 jobs.

8.29am GMT

Q: Richard Hughes, chair of the OBR, told this programme earlier that none of the measures in the budget are expected by the OBR to increase growth.
Reeves says, individually, none of the measures reach the threshold for the OBR to score them, which would require the OBR to think they could raise growth by 0.1%.
But collectively they will help growth, she says.

Updated at 8.30am GMT

8.27am GMT

Q: Why should people believe you when you say you will cut welfare spending?
Reeves says the budget included measures to cut fraud and waste in the welfare system.

8.25am GMT

Robinson asks how many more people will pay tax, or the higher rate of tax, because of the income tax freeze.
Reeves says he knows the numbers.
We do. Here is how the IFS explained them yesterday.

Extending the freezes of personal tax thresholds – which were due to end in 2027-28 – for a further three years to 2030–31 is expected to raise £12.7bn per year (in 2030–31), based on current inflation forecasts. The effect of the freeze as a whole – which began in April 2022 – is now forecast to increase the number of taxpayers by 5.2 million and the number of higher rate taxpayers by 4.8 million in 2030-31. However, the actual revenue yield and the number of taxpayers will be determined by inflation, which is uncertain – it could easily be much larger or smaller.

8.22am GMT
Reeves says 60% of families who will benefit from abolition of 2-child benefit cap have parents in work

Q: Paul Johnson, who used to run the IFS, said yesterday the tax rises were mostly to fund additional spending. But you are protecting people who do not work, because the benefits bill is going.
Reeves says 60% of the families that will benefit from the abolition of the two-child benefit cap have parents who are working.
And poverty creates problems for children. She says, visiting a hospital yesterday, nurses told her children were going to hospital with respiratory illnesses because they were living in cold homes.

8.19am GMT
Reeves interviewed on Today programme

Rachel Reeves is being interviewed on the Today programme.
Nick Robinson is asking the questions.
He starts by playing the clip from Reeves’s budget speech last year when she said freezing tax thresholds would breach the manifesto.
Q: The OBR said you were £6bn short. But you have raised taxes by £26bn. These are your choices?
Reeves accepts they are her choices.
Q: So it is not the Tories’ fault, or Donald Trump’s fault?
Reeves says her choices are defined by the context she faces. She says under the Tories there were false assumptions about productivity.
Q: You did not tell people the truth about what would be necessary.
Reeves does not accept this. She says she is asking working people to pay more. But she is keeping their contribution to a minimum. And that will come in from 2028. She says she is also cutting energy bills from next year.
Q: During the election every day the thinktanks said the numbers did not add up, and that taxes would have to go up. You denied that. Why won’t you apologise?
Reeves says she has to operate within the forecasts she has been given.

8.11am GMT
'External person' may have been involved in accidental, early release of OBR's budget reports, says its chair

Richard Hughes, chair of the Office for Budget Responsibility, has said that “an external person” may have been involved in the accidental release of its budget report yesterday.
In an interview on the Today programme, he said that he had written to the chancellor apologising for the fact that the document became public about 40 minutes before she announced the budget – allowing people to learn all the details in advance.
He also said that that Prof Ciaran Martin, the former head of the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre, will be involved in the OBR’s investigation into what happened.
Hughes told Today:

The documents weren’t published on our webpage itself. It appears there was a link that someone was able to access – an external person.
We need to get to the bottom of what exactly happened. We’re going to do a full investigation. There’ll be a full report to parliament.
We’re going to do that work quickly so people can have assurance in our systems and that can be restored.

8.03am GMT
Working people would have been better off if Reeves had broken manifesto promise on income tax, thinktank says

Good morning. Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, has been speaking to broadcasters and defending her budget. It has not been easy because, although it went down relatively well with Labour MPs and the financial markets (no mean feat – those are two groups whose wishes don’t normally align), it is being hammered by the rightwing papers. Today is the day when the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Resolution Foundation, the two leading public spending thinktanks, publish their detailed assessments, and they have reservations about some of the budget decisions too.
Reeves has been facing questions about breaking Labour’s manifesto promise on tax, which she insists she has not done. But the Resolution Foundation says would be better off if she had broken it. It explains:

The manifesto tax pledge has cost working people. Having previously hinted at raising income tax rates, the chancellor chose instead to freeze personal tax thresholds for three more years. But raising all rates by 1p would have been less costly than freezing thresholds for anyone with an income below £35,000. Indeed, all but the top 10% of the income distribution are worse off because of opting for threshold freezes over rate rises (which raise similar amounts of revenue).

I will be covering what Reeves has been saying shortly. Graeme Wearden already has some of her lines on his business live blog.

Related: Reeves: working people will pay ‘a bit more’ through income tax threshold freeze; OBR chief ‘mortified’ by leak – business live

Here is the agenda for the day.
9am: The Resolution Foundation holds a press conference to discuss its budget analysis.
9.30am: The ONS publishes net migration figures for the year end June 2025. And, separately, the Home Office publishes asylum figures for the year ending September 2025.
10.30am: The Institute for Fiscal Studies holds its post-budget briefing.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Warwickshire. In the afternoon he is visiting a synagogue in London.
If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (normally between 10am and 3pm at the moment), or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.
If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn.bsky.social. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X, but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.
I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.

Updated at 8.12am GMT