Reeves says public services now need to live within the envelope set.

She says departmental spending limits for beyond 2026 will be set out in the next phase of the spending review. She goes on:

But what I am really sure about … [is] that public services now need to live within the envelope that we’ve set. We will not be coming back to top up those budgets.

Reeves is now taking media questions.

Q: [From the Telegraph] Businesses are disappointed with the budget. Haven’t you betrayed them. And are you ruling out any more big tax rises on businesses?

Reeves says she faced a massive hole in the public finances. In the last parliament people saw what happened when government did not address that. She won’t be that sort of chancellor, she says.

She goes on:

Public services now need to live within their means, because I’m really clear, I’m not coming back with more borrowing or more taxes …

At this budget, we did wipe the slate team to put public finances and public services on footing, and as a result, we won’t have to do a budget like this ever again.

And indeed, unlike the last government, I will only be doing one budget a year, so that this government can focus on what our number one priority is, and that’s growing the economy.

Reeves says she had to “wipe the slate clean” with the budget.

But she says she will not need to deliver another budget with tax rises like that again.

You can be confident we’re not going to have to come back again and do another budget like this. So you can be confident about the tax rates we’ve set for this parliament, and public services now, these are within the means that we’ve set.

Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, tells the CBI that “everybody knows that that inheritance [at the time of the budget] was pretty dire in terms of the back hole in the public finances”.

In line with the advance briefing, she says her critics have not been able to come up with alternative proposals.

Q: How will people know if your plans are working?

Reeves says she will be judged on whether the economy grows.

And that will only happen if investment starts to happen, she says.

I want you to judge this government on our number one mission, which is to bring growth back to the UK economy. We can’t do that overnight … But over this parliament, we going to return investment, we’re going to return growth to the economy, because, in the end, that’s the only way to ensure that Britain is competitive and to ensure that we pull our weight in the world to improve living standards for working people.

People who stay in Wales overnight, including children, are set to be charged a visitor levy under a scheme that could raise up to £33m a year to be ploughed back into tourism and culture, Steven Morris reports.

The Welsh government’s news release about the visitor accommodation (register and levy) etc. (Wales) bill is here. Commenting on the plan, Mark Drakeford, the finance secretary in the Welsh government, said:

We know tourism makes an important contribution to the Welsh economy and to Welsh life. We want to ensure its long-term sustainability.

That’s why we believe it is fair visitors contribute towards local facilities, helping to fund infrastructure and services integral to their experience.

Visitor levies are common around the world – benefiting local communities, tourists and businesses – and we want the same for Wales.

Money raised through a levy would be retained by local authorities and reinvested back into their local areas to support local, sustainable tourism.

It’s a small contribution that could make a big difference.

The government has been criticised for the quality of the reports it has produced assessing the likely consequences of its employment rights bill. A series of impact assessments (IAs) were published last month. But the regulatory policy committee (RPC), a body set up to scrutinise the quality of impact assessments, has published a report saying the work by the government for this is “not fit for purpose”. It says:

The RPC has assessed eight of the 23 individual IAs as ‘not fit for purpose’ and six of these are in the ‘highest impact’ measure category in the summary IA. The overall assessment for the bill IA is therefore ‘not fit for purpose’. Given the number and reach of the measures, it would be proportionate to undertake labour market and broader macroeconomic analysis, to understand the overall impact on employment, wages and output, and particularly, the pass-through of employer costs to employees.

Commenting on the report, Andrew Griffith, the shadow business secretary, said:

Labour’s impact assessment for their radical trade union charter has been rated ‘not fit for purpose’ by the government’s own regulator.

But businesses up and down the country knew this already. Just like the national insurance Jobs’ Tax, this bill is the second wave of an attack on job creators.

Keir Starmer is paying tribute to Prescott now.

He says Prescott was the longest-serving deputy PM ever and “a politician for working people through and through”.

In many respects, Prescott was ahead of his time, Starmer says. He championed causes like tackling climate change, fighting regional inequality, supporting the minimum wage, improving public transport, and building council houses.

Prescott was “a skilled negotiator, sometimes with immense and perhaps surprising sensitivity”, Starmer says. He says Prescott had a talent for bringing people together who had different points of view. He was someone who was not in politics for himself, Starmer says. And he was someone who was a team player who would support a position in public, even if he had opposed it in private before the collective decision was taken.

UPDATE: Starmer said:

Make no mistake, [Prescott] did things his own way, and forged his own path, and in doing so, he brought about some of the greatest transformation this country has ever seen, the linchpin of New Labour, because beneath the pugnacious exterior, John was a skilled negotiator, sometimes with immense and perhaps surprising sensitivity.

He had an incredible skill, which was the ability to bring people together from different starting points, whether that was his work on climate negotiations, or closer at home in his own party, to stand together in a better place. And that sums up another thing that the public, I think, sensed about John. He was not in it for himself.

He was a team player, and he was proud to play for Team Labour, that was never more evident than during the campaign season, when it was time to bring out the battle bus, which has become a tradition our deputy prime minister proudly continued this year, because the Prescott Express was a morale boost to any campaign.

It may have been arriving in a Tesco car park, but John was always met with a reception like Beatlemania and no wonder, the public were at the heart of John’s politics.

And it’s clear the public had a particular place in their heart for him too, and that was key to his popularity. And indeed, after the famous incident, it was the public who came out swinging for him.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies thinktank has published a paper suggesting two changes to the government’s plans to extend inheritance tax to farms that it says would make them fairer. The IFS is broadly supportive of what the government is doing, but it accepts that the change in inheritance tax rules has disadvantaged elderly farmers who, if they knew this was coming, would have already given away their farms to their children. Summing up the IFS arguments, David Sturrock, one of the authors of the paper, said:

Inheritance tax [IHT] relief for agricultural and business assets favours those whose wealth is held in these forms rather than others. It also provides a tax incentive for agricultural land to be used by the wealthy as a way to avoid inheritance tax. That is unfair, inefficient and creates economic costs.

Those objecting to the change claim that paying IHT will have detrimental effects on food production or the environment. But if government wishes to promote food production or certain uses of land, there are much better ways of doing so than through an inheritance tax break. It is also objected, as a matter of principle, that this could result in families having to sell up and move on from farms that have been in the same family for generations. That is an argument against inheritance tax in general – it can have the same effect on family homes, for example – rather than a strong case for protecting certain forms of assets specifically.

The exact design of the tax change is important, and there are two mitigations which the government could consider. There is a good case for making unused portions of the new £1m allowance inheritable by a spouse or civil partner, as happens for the main inheritance tax allowances. In addition, current farm owners passing away in the next seven years (but after the new regime comes into force in April 2026) will not have had the opportunity to avoid inheritance tax by making lifetime gifts. If the government wished to give current farm owners the same opportunity to avoid inheritance tax as owners of other assets, it could, for example, make lifetime gifts of agricultural property made before a certain future date inheritance tax free, regardless of the timing of the death.

Responding to the report, Tim Farron, the Lib Dem environment spokesperson, said

The government hid behind the IFS to try and justify this disastrous policy. That very same organisation is now telling them that their own proposals need an overhaul.

It would be beggars belief for the government to continue to push forward with these stupid plans.

They need to swallow their pride, realise the damage this family farm tax will do and axe the tax.

Labour claims the Conservative party is now implicitly accepting the need for the tax increases in the budget. Referring to the Kemi Badenoch’s speech to the CBI, and her refusal to commit her party to reversing the rise in employers’ national insurance in the budget (see 2.13pm), a Labour spokesperson said:

After weeks of campaigning against it, Kemi Badenoch is now refusing to say whether she would actually reverse the employer national insurance rise. The opposition seem to finally accept that the damage they did to the economy made tax rises necessary - but the least the public deserve is an answer on what their actual position is.

It’s no wonder there was nothing to trail from the leader of the opposition’s speech: she has nothing to say.

While the Tories try and work out what they think, Labour is getting on with fixing the foundations and rebuilding the country.

Simon Jack, business editor of the BBC, asked Kemi Badenoch about her claim that there was an alternative to the budget plans. (See 2.03pm.) If she did not agree with the taxes, what taxes would she raise instead? Or what services would she cut?

Badenoch said she did not accept the premise of the question. She went on:

We need to stop looking at everything as if it’s just a ledger where there’s taxes raised and services delivered. Not everything that government does is public services. We can do things better. We can redesign things.

Badenoch suggested there was no need for government to set up a football regulator. Although this was just a “tiny thing”, it was an example of unnecessary, “burdensome” regulation.

That is why I’m not talking about which tax will tweak here or which service we’re going to cut there. We need to completely change the way we talk about how our economy works.

She said she wanted “deep, real [policy] reviews, asking the right questions, not just a policy tweak here or there”. She went on:

If we’re going to rewire the state, we need to start from there and not just adjust little nods and levers on tax or insurance. Let’s think about everything from first principles.

During the Q&A after her speech Kemi Badenoch would not commit to reversing the rise in employers’ national insurance in the budget.

Asked if she would give such a commitment, Badenoch said that, if a tax increase is not raising money, the Tories would reverse it. “One of the things that we’re going to have to do is rewire everything,” she said. But she said she would not “comment on every bit of micro-policy” now.

However, she did say the fact so many firms are complaining about the tax, and saying that it will make employing people on low wages unaffordable, meant that the government should “look again” at the plan. And that would be something the Tories would look at when they started work on their policy platform, she said.

UPDATE: Badenoch said:

Where we can see that a change that has been brought in in the budget ... will not raise any money, we will change that. What I’m not going to do is comment on every bit of micro-policy. There will be different budgets, there will be new things that occur, the system may change.

What I am starting with is principles, we believe that employer’s national insurance, while necessary to help us fund public services, is a tax on jobs.

The fact that so many organisations – especially those that have people who are on the lowest wages – are saying that this is becoming unaffordable means that we should look again, and that’s one of the first things that we’re going to be doing when we start our policy platform.

Badenoch ended her speech by referring to reports that, when Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, speaks to the CBI later, she will say no one has offered a good alternative to the proposal in her budget.

Badenoch said:

They will tell you there is no alternative, there is. We need an alternative strategy so we can finally unleash the power of business to make our country better.

I believe in the immense power of business to do good. You may not be the public sector. But many of you deliver critical services for the public.

So I will stand up for the values of business.

It’s time to defend free enterprise and capitalism, to defend lower taxes, less borrowing and healthy, real competition.

Badenoch called for a rethink in the role of the state.

We are trying to fix problems with the wrong tools. We are using a mindset and a paradigm that worked well in the late 20th century, but does not work well when we have aggressive competitor economies like China.

And when there is rapid technological innovation, when our society is getting older and the birth rate is still too low, more quangos, more interference, more regulations, more laws will not fix that.

We need to ask ourselves, ‘What is the role of the state? What can we do to create a level playing field and allow you to go out and fix those problems?’

Badenoch said she wanted politicians to cut back on regulation.

Politics needs to accept boundaries. Every day in the legislature, someone has a great new idea that sounds nice in principle, but in practice, creates more red tape, more bureaucracy, more burden. The incentive for us as politicians is to keep announcing new nice things.

But the way to fix things is not just about creating new laws. We must not be a bureaucratic state. We need to get a proper diagnosis of what is going wrong. Why is capital investment so low? Why is productivity still so stubbornly stalled?

I have read endless reports and many reviews with all sorts of potential solutions improving skills or getting our pensions working harder for us, and we have brought in regulations and policies to address this. And yet, still, things are not getting better. I think we need to look again.

So I’m not standing here telling you that I have all the answers. I am letting you know that I have seen the system from the inside and it is broken.

Badenoch also said she wanted to take a new approach to growth.

We have got to be more precise when we talk about growth. It is not just about increased GDP. It is not even just about increased GDP per capita. You can increase GDP by increasing immigration, but no one feels richer. In fact, some gets poorer. You can increase GDP per capita by getting more millionaires and billionaires to move to your country, but that won’t necessarily make everyone else better off. In fact, there are many studies that show even when nothing has changed, we are more likely to feel worse when we compare ourselves with those who are a lot wealthier than us.

I am talking about real growth, growth that people can see, growth that people can feel, seeing an improved environment around them, as well as having more money in their pockets to spend, knowing that we have enough money to provide security, to protect our families, but also to protect our country in increasingly dangerous times …

The bottom line is that economic growth is not the end in itself. It is a means to an end. The end is to make people’s lives better.

Badenoch says, as leader of the opposition, she wants to start by setting out principles, not policies.

So what are our principles? I believe that we need to have free and fair competition, not monopolies, not rent seeking, not corporatism, but in genuine competition that allows new entrants in and those who are no longer productive to evolve or leave the economy. That is what free enterprise is about.

We Conservatives must be the party of business, not just big business, not just corporates, but small business, too. Every big business started out as a small business, and that is why I am so concerned that the burden on them is still increasing with taxes, corporation tax, employers’ national insurance and new regulations …

So I am here to show you that I understand businesses values. I am not here to represent business interests. That’s your job. I’m here to let you know the Conservative party shares your values.

I’m often criticised for talking about capitalism. Someone once told me that capitalism is old fashioned. I don’t think so. I think it is important that we explain what capitalism in a free market environment means. Capitalism is not a dirty word, wealth is not a dirty word, profit is not a dirty word.

But we need to start explaining how these things deliver for the people out there people who often think that you are in it for yourselves.

Kemi Badenoch starts by asking how you can tell if a politician will do what they say they will do. She goes on:

If you really want to know what someone is going to be like, look at what they did when they had the chance.

And speaking to all of you today, not just as leader of the Conservative party, but as a former business secretary, many of you would have heard me talk about how we needed to deregulate, and you would have seen examples of how I tried to lift the burden on businesses.

Badenoch says, as a minister, she opposed “well-meaning but burdensome regulation”.

She says people often want the government to solve everything. But often government just needs to get out of the way, she says.

This is a very difficult argument to make. People want the government to fix everything. They want the government to solve everything, and if you ever sound hesitant, then they will make you out to be a cruel, unfeeling person, as I have discovered, to my own personal cost.

And this is partly how we have got ourselves into a state where debt is at record levels, and we are spending more on debt servicing than we are on health or on education or on defence. That needs to change.

Kemi Badenoch will soon be giving her first speech to a CBI conference as Conservative leader.

There is a live feed here.

Downing Street has defended Keir Starmer’s decision this morning to promote plans to make spiking a criminal offence (see 11.16am) – even thought it is already illegal.

Although No 10 said in its news release that spiking will become “a new criminal offence”, not that it will become an offence for the first time, people following the news casually could be lulled into thinking the government is banning something that is currently legal. Starmer himself implied this earlier today when he posted this on social media.

Spiking will be made a criminal offence.

My government was elected to take back our streets, central to this mission is making sure women and girls can feel safe at night.

Perpetrators of spiking will feel the full force of the law.

Asked if this was misleading, the PM’s spokesperson told journalists at the lobby briefing this morning that the government was creating a new offence to “send a very clear signal” that offenders should expect punishment. He went on:

This new legislation will also empower victims to report offences and give them confidence that the justice system will support them.

When it was put to him that Starmer’s tweet implied spiking was not already illegal, the spokesperson said the PM was referring to a new offence being created.

The spiking law is a good example of what the Economist’s Bagehot column described earlier this year as the “ban it harder” trend in British politics. “When it comes to tackling an injustice that is already against the law, the answer can be simple: ban it harder,” Bagehot wrote. On the subject of spiking in particular, the column said:

Spiking, in which a victim’s drink is drugged in order to rob or assault them, is a terrifying crime. It was already prosecutable under seven separate offences before the Home Office proposed legal amendments in December 2023 to show “without any doubt, spiking is illegal”. But the reason why prosecutions are rare, and the true scale of spiking hard to define, is because hospitals do not routinely test for drugs in emergency wards. A new offence is unlikely to change that.

The Foreign Office has announced a fresh wave of sanctions against Russia’s “shadow fleet” of oil tankers which it is using to try to evade international restricitons on its oil importants.

In a news release, the Foreign Office said:

Thirty ships in Russia’s shadow fleet, responsible for transporting billions of pounds worth of oil and oil products in the last year alone, have today been sanctioned by the UK. With half of the ships targeted today transporting more than $4.3bn worth of oil and oil products like gasoline in the last year alone, today is the largest UK package of its kind.

The move will further constrain the Kremlin’s ability to fund their illegal war in Ukraine and their malign activity worldwide, and brings the total number of oil tankers sanctioned by the UK to 73, more than any other nation - demonstrating the UK’s leadership on tackling the shadow fleet.

This is what Keir Starmer told ITV’s Good Morning Britain when asked about the online petition signed by 2 million people calling for an election on the grounds that “the current Labour government have gone back on the promises they laid out in the lead up to the last election”. Starmer said:

Look, I remind myself that very many people didn’t vote Labour at the last election.

I’m not surprised that many of them want a rerun. That isn’t how our system works.

There will be plenty of people who didn’t want us in in the first place.

So, what my focus is on is the decisions that I have to make every day.

Calling for a general election now when we had one less than six months ago and when the government has a working majority of 163 is clearly bonkers. But the petition is attracting signatures because it is being strongly promoted by high-profile rightwinger provocateurs like the X owner Elon Musk and the Reform UK leader Nigel Farage.

Q: Are you feeling the pressure? There is a petition signed by 2 million people calling for another election.

Starmer says he is not surprised that people who did not support Labour in the first place want the election to be re-run. But that is not how the system worked.

Q: Your approval rating is lower than Nigel Farage’s. That must be disappointing.

Starmer says, if you take the difficult decisions first, it is inevitable some people won’t be happy.

I’m not surprised, quite frankly, that as we’re doing the tough stuff, there are plenty of people who say, ‘Well, I’m impacted.’

Q: Is it harder than you expected?

Starmer says he always knew this would be difficult. But he came into politics to take difficult decisions, he says.

He says there are 7 million people on waiting lists. He wants to bring them down.

Rain Newton-Smith, the CBI chief executive, has given the government credit for “drawing the curtain on a near decade of instability at home”.

But, in line with the advance briefing, she also used her speech to the CBI conference this morning to argue that the tax rises in the budget will harm business.

She said:

What really defines growth is the decisions made in boardrooms up and down the country.

It’s CFOs [chief financial officers] asking, ‘can we afford to invest? Can we afford to expand? Can we afford to take a chance on new people?’

Well after the budget, the answer we’re hearing from so many firms is still ‘not yet’.

The rise in national insurance, the stark lowering of the threshold, caught us all off guard.

Along with the expansion and the rise of the national living wage – which everyone wants to accommodate – and the potential cost of the employment rights bill, they put a heavy burden on business.

She also said that tax rises like this should never be imposed on business by surprise again.

From now on, we need to shift from consultation to co-design.

Tax rises like this must never again be simply done to business. That’s the road to unintended consequences.

Instead, we need an elevated partnership for a higher purpose.

There is more coverage of her speech on our business live blog.

In her interview on the Today programme this morning Jess Phillips, the minister for safeguarding and violence against women and girls, was asked about a call from UN Women UK for bystanders to be more proactive in intervening to protect women being harassed or threatened in public spaces.

Asked if she she would advise people to intervene, Phillips replied:

Yes, I would, but I would say always do it safely.

If you say something in the street that’s really worrying you, you should ring 999.

But what I would say is that you can definitely ask if somebody is all right in the street. There’s no active aggression in that.

Phillips also said she was speaking from a club where staff were trained to intervene in this sort of way if they say men bothering women on the dance floor. She said there was nothing offensive about asking a woman if she was OK.

Russia and other adversaries of the UK are trying to use artificial intelligence to enhance cyber-attacks against the nation’s infrastructure, Pat McFadden, the Cabinet Office minister, will warn at a Nato conference in London later today. Dan Sabbagh has the story.

Good morning. There is plenty happening today. Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, and Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, are both speaking at the CBI conference, where the CBI chief executive Rain Newton-Smith is warning about the impact of the budget on business. Keir Starmer is hosting a meeting at Downing Street about plans to protect women from spiking. “My government was elected on a pledge to take back our streets, and we will never achieve this if women and girls do not feel safe at night,” he says. There will be tributes to John Prescott in the Commons this afternoon. But one issue is going to dominate the week, the vote on the assisted dying bill on Friday, and already that is a big topic of discussion.

Jess Phillips, the minister for safeguarding and violence against women and girls, has been giving interviews this morning and she told the Today programme she is finding it impossible to predict if the bill will pass the second reading vote. She said:

We do not know how this vote is going to go. I literally couldn’t call it for you at the moment …

Each week I think a different thing. Last week I thought it wouldn’t [pass]. This week I think it might. Honestly, I’ve learned over the years not to try and second guess parliament.

Phillips is not the only person finding the vote hard to call. Eleanor Langford from the i has been keeping a tally of how MPs intend to vote and last night she published her figures on social media.

Since the assisted dying bill was announced, I've been keeping a close eye on MP views

I've found 207 supportive and 141 opposed... but there are still 291 we don't know about

(N.B. Can't share full spreadsheet due to anon declarations. Total excludes Sinn Fein and Speakers.) pic.twitter.com/G9N1TXsNoX

— Eleanor Langford (@eleanormia) November 24, 2024

Since the assisted dying bill was announced, I’ve been keeping a close eye on MP views

I’ve found 207 supportive and 141 opposed... but there are still 291 we don’t know about

(N.B. Can’t share full spreadsheet due to anon declarations. Total excludes Sinn Fein and Speakers.)

I should underline that these figures are *not* a prediction of the vote, but an interesting look at the direction MPs are leaning

With 291 MPs not stating a view at the time of writing, the vote very easily could go either way

We’ll know the actual result on Friday afternoon

According to Janet Eastham’s story in the Daily Telegraph today, supporters of the bill think it will pass – provided MPs who have said they support it are willing to vote for it.

A source close to the MPs campaigning in favour of legalisation told The Telegraph: “If all the MPs who have said they support the Bill turn out and vote for it, then it will pass.”

When MPs last voted on assisted dying, in 2015, the bill was easily defeated by 330 votes to 118. After the election many people assumed that the Labour landslide, and the drastic change in the composition of parliament, meant that there is now a majority for assisted dying. But in recent weeks there have been indications that opponents of the bill are gaining ground, in part because Wes Streeting, the health secretary, and Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretary (the two cabinet ministers who would have most responsibility for implementing assisted dying) have come out against it forcefully.

In interviews this morning Phillips said she would be voting for assisted dying, as she did in 2015. She also rejected the suggestion that Mahmood’s criticism of the bill could be disregarded because it was motivated by religion (something Charlie Falconer, the former Labour lord chancellor, suggested yesterday). Asked if it was wrong for Mahmood to impose her faith on others, Phillips said:

She will make the decision about how she votes on assisted dying on a matter of conscience, just exactly like I will. How she comes to that and what moral code she uses to come to that will be exactly the same as the moral code that I use to come to that decision as well …

I think that Shabana is making a decision on what she thinks is best for her constituents, like every constituency MP.

Here is the agenda for the day.

Morning: Keir Starmer hosts a meeting in Downing Streeting on measures to protect women from spiking.

10.05am: Rain Newton-Smith, the CBI chief executive, speaks at the start of the CBI’s annual conference.

After 11am: Keir Starmer is due to be interviewed on ITV’s This Morning.

11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

1.30pm: Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leaders, speaks at the CBI conference.

1.40pm: Pat McFadden, the Cabinet Office minister, speaks at the Nato cyber defence conference.

2.30pm: Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.

3.30pm: Amanda Pritchard, the NHS England chief executive, and Chris Wormald, permanent secretary at the Department of Health and Social Care, give evidence to the Commons public acccounts committee about NHS finances.

After 3.30pm: MPs are expected to pay tribute to John Prescott in the Commons following his death last week.

4.10pm: Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, takes part in a Q&A at the CBI conference.

5pm (UK time): John Healey, the defence secretary, speaks at a press conference with his German, French, Polish and Italian counterparts after they hold a meeting in Berlin.

If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line 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. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X but individual Guardian journalists are there, I have 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.