Connect with us

News

Rachel Reeves says Labour would ‘unashamedly champion’ the City

Published

on

Rachel Reeves says Labour would ‘unashamedly champion’ the City

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves has said she has no plans to restore a cap on bankers’ bonuses, as she vowed to “unashamedly champion” Britain’s financial services sector if Labour wins the general election.

Reeves will this week launch Labour’s plan for financial services, promising to cut red tape, embrace artificial intelligence, bolster regional financial centres and promote green finance.

But Labour’s blueprint, drawn up with advice from City grandees, is most notable for what it does not do: Reeves recognises that the sector does not want a big political upheaval after years of post-Brexit change.

Advertisement

“The last thing we need is a massive upheaval,” said one ally of Reeves. “Rachel recognises that stability and security is needed.”

Reeves said that she would not reintroduce the post-financial cap on bankers’ bonuses — set at 200 per cent of regular pay — which was scrapped in 2022 by Liz Truss’s chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng.

“The cap on bankers’ bonuses was bought in in the aftermath of the global financial crisis and that was the right thing to do to rebuild the public finances,” she told the BBC. “But that has gone now and we don’t have any intention of bringing that back.”

The financial services plan, seen by the Financial Times, welcomes some recent Conservative regulatory changes in the City, including chancellor Jeremy Hunt’s Edinburgh Reforms and changes to the Solvency II insurance regime.

Reeves’s argument is that many of them did not go far enough. “Too often in the last decade, British politicians have sounded embarrassed about the sectors we excel in,” she told the FT. “That will change with Labour.”

Advertisement

“The next Labour government will unashamedly champion the UK’s financial services sector,” she added.

Former Labour leader Ed Miliband once branded parts of the City “predators”, while his successor Jeremy Corbyn had a dismal relationship with the Square Mile. Pro-Brexit Tories have also clashed with the City in recent years.

The financial services plan will be launched on Thursday at a Labour business day attended by 400 business leaders, including from companies such as Google, Shell, AstraZeneca, Airbus and Goldman Sachs.

Reeves hopes her financial services plan, drawn up with shadow City minister Tulip Siddiq, will help to cement the bonds between Labour and business.

Nigel Higgins, Barclays chair and one of a number of City figures who advised Labour on its financial services plan, said the party’s report recognised the “importance of international competitiveness”.

Advertisement

However Labour has been criticised by private equity bosses over a plan to close a “carried interest” tax loophole that allows buyout bosses to pay less tax on part of their earnings.

The Labour report includes several proposals, some of which have been announced before, and others that will be subject to consultation:

  • A review of City regulation to cut outdated rules and reduce overlap between different watchdogs

  • Regulating the buy now, pay later sector and “exploring” the prospects for long-term mortgages

  • Endorsing the use of artificial intelligence in the City and becoming a “global standard setter”

  • Building a more “collaborative relationship with the EU”, including mutual recognition of professional qualifications

  • Empowering the British Business Bank to invest more in growth capital

  • Rolling out 350 “banking hubs” to help people have free access to banking services

Advisers on Labour’s plan, acting in a personal capacity, included Sir John Kingman, chair of Legal & General; David Schwimmer, chief executive of the London Stock Exchange Group; and Baroness Shriti Vadera, chair of Prudential.

Charles Randell, former chair of the Financial Conduct Authority, also advised on the plan and said it provided for “stable and proportionate regulation”.

The Tories have argued Labour would be bad for business, targeting in particular the party’s £28bn-a-year spending plan for green investments. The Conservatives claim this would force Labour to increase taxes or break fiscal targets to reduce debt as a proportion of GDP in five years’ time.

Advertisement

Some in the City are also anxious that Reeves, if she becomes Labour chancellor, would target business with higher taxes to raise funds for struggling public services. Labour has said it has no plans to do so.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is expected to announce the line-up of his business advisory council for 2024 on Wednesday.

News

Federal judge bars Trump from implementing proof of citizenship requirement to vote

Published

on

Federal judge bars Trump from implementing proof of citizenship requirement to vote

A federal judge on Wednesday permanently barred President Donald Trump’s administration from implementing most of his first executive order on elections, part of which sought to require people to show documentary proof of citizenship when they register to vote.

The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Denise Casper in Boston effectively converts a preliminary injunction she issued a year ago, in which she temporarily blocked many of Trump’s efforts to overhaul elections, into a permanent ban.

Casper rejected the Republican administration’s argument that the lawsuit to block the changes brought by Democratic state attorneys general was premature because the rules had yet to be put in place. Instead, she agreed that the Constitution gives states and Congress the authority to regulate elections, and that Trump’s requirements violated the separation of powers.

The Constitution “does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” wrote Casper.

Among other proposed changes, Trump’s order would have required people to provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote, prevented mail ballots from being counted if they arrive after Election Day, even if they were postmarked by then, and punished states that failed to comply by withholding certain federal money.

Advertisement

In a statement, New York Attorney General Letitia James said she was grateful the court had blocked Trump’s “unconstitutional attempt to seize control of our elections” and would continue to defend voting rights in this year’s midterm elections.

“Generations of Americans fought tirelessly for the right to vote, and we honor their legacy by protecting that right against anyone who tries to undermine it,” said James, a Democrat.

A voter casts a ballot during New York’s primary election on Tuesday, June 23, 2026, in New York. (AP Photo/Ryan Murphy)

Advertisement

Advertisement

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose state was the lead plaintiff in the case, said the ruling reaffirmed the constitutional principle that it s up to the states and Congress to set election rules.

“While we are proud of this result, we are clear-eyed that President Trump’s attacks on voting rights and our elections show no signs of slowing down,” Bonta, a Democrat, said in a statement. “So let me be clear: we will keep fighting back every step of the way.”

Requests for comment sent to the White House and he U.S. Department of Justice were not immediately returned.

The ruling was the latest in a series against the elections executive order Trump signed just months after taking office for his second term. The Republican president has since signed another executive order on elections that seeks to create a national voter list and limit mail balloting. That directive also faces multiple legal challenges.

Advertisement

Last fall, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., overseeing a separate challenge to the first election executive order by civil rights and Democratic Party-aligned groups blocked the government from taking steps to include the proof-of-citizenship requirement on the federal voter registration form. That judge later barred Trump’s defense secretary from requiring documentary proof of citizenship when military personnel register to vote or request ballots.

In an apparent nod to the difficulty of implementing a proof-of-citizen requirement by executive order, Trump is pushing legislation in the Republican-controlled Congress to create such a mandate. The SAVE America Act has passed the House but has stalled in the Senate, leading Trump to advocate for eliminating the filibuster that is blocking the legislation.

On Wednesday, he abruptly canceled the expected signing of a bipartisan housing bill, saying he would not sign legislation until Congress passes his proof of citizenship requirement for voting.

The president and many of his Republican allies have been promoting the narrative that voting by noncitizens is a major problem, when in fact it’s quite rare. The federal voter registration form already requires people to attest that they are U.S. citizens. Violating that is punishable as a felony that can lead to prison or deportation.

In another major voting case, the U.S. Supreme Court is due to issue an opinion soon on whether mail ballots must arrive by Election Day. That could immediately change the rules in 14 states that allow grace periods ranging from days to weeks if the ballots are postmarked by Election Day.

Advertisement

Casper, who was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama, is the chief judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Continue Reading

News

Video: Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries

Published

on

Video: Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries

new video loaded: Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries

transcript

transcript

Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries

Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s progressive coalition had a big night on Tuesday. Brad Lander, Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez won their Democratic House primaries.

“I see a New York that we can all afford. I see a New York that truly invests in its babies, not bombs.” Reporter: “What’s the first thing you’re looking forward to doing in Congress?” “Well, tomorrow — thank you — I mean, tomorrow morning, you know, I’m going to be back at 26 Federal Plaza doing court watching, and we want to carry that into Congress as well.”

Advertisement
Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s progressive coalition had a big night on Tuesday. Brad Lander, Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez won their Democratic House primaries.

By Julie Yoon

June 24, 2026

Continue Reading

News

Appeals court allows Trump administration expanded use of speedy deportations

Published

on

Appeals court allows Trump administration expanded use of speedy deportations

A massive 826,780-square-foot warehouse sits illuminated Feb. 12, 2026, in the El Paso suburb of Socorro, Texas, that was recently purchased by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for $122.8 million.

Morgan Lee/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Morgan Lee/AP

A federal appeals court on Tuesday allowed the Trump administration to resume carrying out speedy deportations of undocumented migrants throughout the United States, not just near the border.

A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit threw out a lower court decision that temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s expanded use of expedited removal. The ruling was a big victory for the Republican administration, which views the expansion of so-called expedited removal as a key tool for carrying out its mass deportation policy.

Expedited removal — quick deportation without a chance to appear before a judge — has previously been applied to migrants arriving by sea or caught at or near the border shortly after crossing.

Advertisement

In January, Trump expanded its use to undocumented migrants all over the United States. Immigration agents began whisking migrants away from courthouses where they had gone for immigration proceedings and then removing them from the country within days.

“The Trump administration’s push for fast-track deportations will subject people to an unfair and error-prone system,” Anand Balakrishnan, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in a statement.

Balakrishnan represented plaintiffs in arguments before the appellate panel and said its ruling “undermines the fundamental principle that people receive due process when the government seeks to deport them.”

DC Circuit Judge Justin R. Walker, one of the judges on the panel, said the plaintiffs had not shown the expanded use of expedited removal violated due process rights. Immigrants received notice of removal proceedings and were given a chance to respond, he wrote in his opinion.

Walker and the second judge in the majority, Neomi Rao, were appointed by Trump. The third judge on the panel was appointed by President Barack Obama, a Democrat.

Advertisement

Walker said there was no requirement that the administration inform immigrants that they can avoid expedited removal if they can show they have been in the United States for more than two years.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending