In a newly released video, Rachel Reeves said the public is "frustrated at the pace of change" - but vowed to "take the fair and necessary choices" to tackle the cost of living crisis.

And in a dig at the Conservatives - especially former prime minister Liz Truss - she pledged not to impose austerity, lose control of public spending, or engage in more reckless borrowing.

Budget 2025: Follow the latest in the Money blog and Politics Hub

Tax rises: What we know so far

Taxation will be a dominant part of the budget as Ms Reeves tries to plug an estimated £30bn black hole in the public finances.

A headline measure is expected to be an extension of the freeze on income tax thresholds for another two years beyond 2028, which should raise about £8bn.

But given the chancellor had ruled out such a measure last year - because it would "hurt working people" and "take more money out of their payslips" - this will attract criticism from opposition parties.

The chancellor has backed away from raising income tax rates outright, a move that would have breached Labour's manifesto, but she still needs to find the cash to pay for her public spending plans.

Some measures already confirmed by the government include:

• Allowing local authorities to impose a levy on tourists staying in their areas

• Expanding the sugar tax levy to packaged milkshakes and lattes

• Imposing extra taxes on higher-value properties

It is being reported that the chancellor will also put a cap on the tax-free allowance for salary sacrifice schemes, raise taxes on gambling firms, and bring in a pay-per-mile scheme for electric vehicles.

Setting the scene ahead of the budget at 12.30pm, Ms Reeves said she will "push ahead with the biggest drive for growth in a generation", promising investment in infrastructure, housing, security, defence, education, and skills.

Although she has vowed not to "duck challenges" nor "accept that our past must define our future", she admitted that "the damage done from austerity, a chaotic Brexit, and the pandemic were worse than we thought".

The fiscal black hole is down to several factors - including a downgrade in the productivity growth forecast, U-turns on cuts to benefits and the winter fuel allowance, as well as "heightened global uncertainty".

Nonetheless, the chancellor has promised more investment to cut NHS waiting lists, deal with "waste in the public sector", and reduce the national debt.

"This budget is for you, the British people. So that together we can build a fairer, stronger, and more secure Britain," she said.

Conservative shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride has said Ms Reeves is "trying to pull the wool over your eyes" - having promised last year that she would not need to raise taxes again.

Meanwhile, Liberal Democrat deputy leader Daisy Cooper has accused her and the prime minister of "yet more betrayals".

What could her key spending announcements be?

As well as filling the black hole in the public finances, these measures could allow the chancellor to spend money on a key demand of Labour MPs - partially or fully lifting the two-child benefits cap, which they say will have an immediate impact on reducing child poverty.

Benefits more broadly will be uprated in line with inflation, at a cost of £6bn, The Times reports.

In an attempt to help households with the cost of the living, the paper also reports that the chancellor will seek to cut energy bills by removing some green levies, which could see funding for some energy efficiency measures reduced.

Other measures The Times says she will announce include retaining the 5p cut in fuel duty, and extending the Electric Car Grant by an extra year, which gives consumers a £3,750 discount at purchase.

The government has already confirmed several key announcements, including:

• An above-inflation £550 a year increase in the state pension for 13 million eligible pensioners

• A freeze in prescription prices and rail fares

• £5m to refresh libraries in secondary schools

Extra funding for the NHS will also be announced in a bid to slash waiting lists, including the expansion of the "Neighbourhood Health Service" across the country to bring together GP, nursing, dentistry and pharmacy services - as well as £300m of investment into upgrading technology in the health service.

And although the cost of this is borne by businesses, the chancellor will confirm a 4.1% rise to the national living wage - taking it to £12.71 an hour for eligible workers aged 21 and over.

For a full-time worker over the age of 21, that means a pay increase of £900 a year.

Read more from Sky News:
Will expected 'stealth tax' announcement affect you?
Are we set for another astoundingly complex budget?

Britons facing 'cost of living permacrisis'

However, the Tories have hit out at the chancellor for the impending tax rises, with shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride saying in a statement: "Having already raised taxes by £40bn, Reeves said she had wiped the slate clean, she wouldn't be coming back for more, and it was now on her. A year later and she is set to break that promise."

He described her choices as "political weakness" - choosing "higher welfare and higher taxes", and "hardworking families are being handed the bill".

The Liberal Democrat deputy leader Daisy Cooper is also not impressed, and warned last night: "The economy is at a standstill. Despite years of promises from the Conservatives and now Labour to kickstart growth and clamp down on crushing household bills, the British people are facing a cost-of-living permacrisis and yet more betrayals from those in charge."

She called on the government to negotiate a new customs union with the EU, which she argues would "grow our economy and bring in tens of billions for the Exchequer".

Green Party leader Zack Polanski has demanded "bold policies and bold choices that make a real difference to ordinary people".

The SNP is calling on the chancellor to "help families" rather than "hammer them with billions of pounds of cuts and damaging tax hikes that destroy jobs and hurt economic growth".

To learn of US envoy Steve Witkoff and his Russian interactions is to understand the handbrake turn towards Moscow.

If there was much surprise and confusion about the origins of a peace proposal that had Russian fingerprints all over it, there is less now.

The Bloomberg report of Witkoff's recent involvement distills eye-watering detail of his contact with Yuri Ushakov, Vladimir Putin's senior adviser on foreign policy.

Among the revelations, it tells of the American advising the Russian on dealing with Trump.

In a phone call last month, Witkoff told Ushakov that Zelenskyy was coming to visit the White House, and suggested Putin speak to Trump beforehand.

Witkoff reportedly said: "The president will give me a lot of space and discretion to get to the deal."

He spoke of Trump's 20-point Gaza peace plan and suggested that "maybe we do the same thing with you".

Read more:
Who actually wrote Trump's peace plan?
Steve Witkoff: Real estate mogul turned envoy

A good impression of a useful idiot

Subsequently, Witkoff drafted the controversial peace proposal with his Russian counterparts, and the US pressured Ukraine to accept it.

The report paints an unflattering picture of Trump's envoy doing a good impression of a useful idiot.

There must be serious questions surrounding his engagement with the Russians and serious concerns around consequences that are potentially catastrophic.

Moscow's threat to Ukraine and to the security infrastructure of Western Europe is strengthened on his handshake.

He'll press the flesh in Russia once more - Donald Trump is sending Witkoff back to Moscow for further talks aimed at bridging the Ukraine-Russia impasse.

Scandal isn't what it used to be

Putin has given the Americans little to no encouragement around their reworked plan and Kyiv will shudder at what Trump's "Mr Fixit" might fix next.

They will despair of his continued involvement at any level and what it says about Trump's perspective and where his loyalties lie.

In any other job, Witkoff might have been sacked for being irredeemably compromised.

At any other time, this would have been viewed, universally, as a major scandal.

But under Donald Trump, scandal isn't what it used to be.

The president and his point man continue to consort with Vladimir Putin.

On the evidence of Steve Witkoff's interaction, the power dynamic leans less Trump than we might have thought.

The 63-year-old brandished a sword as he addressed supporters during a march in Caracas, against a backdrop of growing tensions with Donald Trump's administration.

Dressed in camouflage fatigues, Mr Maduro said: "We must be ready to defend every inch of this blessed land from imperialist threat or aggression, no matter where it comes from."

Since September, US military forces have been conducting a series of strikes against vessels suspected of drug trafficking in international waters, killing at least 80 people.

Washington has claimed that several of these boats had departed from Venezuela, with Mr Maduro describing the deployment as an assault on the nation's sovereignty.

'Stop this madness'

Yesterday, Cuba also accused the US of seeking a violent overthrow of Mr Maduro's government - and called its military presence in the region "exaggerated and aggressive".

The country's foreign minister, Bruno Rodriguez, said ousting Venezuela's leader would be extremely dangerous and irresponsible, not to mention a violation of international law.

He added: "We appeal to the people of the United States to stop this madness. The US government could cause an incalculable number of deaths and create a scenario of violence and instability in the hemisphere that would be unimaginable."

Reports suggest the US is planning to launch a new phase of Venezuela-related operations in the coming days.

Critics have questioned the legality of America's campaign and argue it amounts to extrajudicial killings, with a recent poll suggesting just 29% of voters support this policy.

Officials within Maduro's government have claimed that Washington's actions are being driven by economic motives.

Venezuelan minister Delcy Rodriguez said: "They want Venezuela's oil and gas reserves. For nothing, without paying. They want Venezuela's gold.

"They want Venezuela's diamonds, iron, bauxite. They want Venezuela's natural resources."

Donald Trump, like his predecessor Joe Biden, does not recognise Mr Maduro as the country's leader.

He is currently on his third term after being declared the winner of last year's presidential election, despite evidence that the opposition defeated him by a two-to-one margin.

Mr Maduro and senior officials have been repeatedly accused of human rights violations against real and perceived government opponents.

Earlier this week, the US designated Venezuela's Cartel de los Soles - Cartel of the Suns in English - as a foreign terrorist organisation for importing illegal drugs to the States.

The Trump administration has claimed that Maduro is part of this group, but Venezuelan officials have described its mere existence as a "ridiculous fabrication".

Speaking to reporters on Air Force One as he travelled to Florida for Thanksgiving, the president suggested he might be planning to talk to Mr Maduro.

"If we can save lives, if we can do things the easy way, that's fine," the US president said. "And if we have to do it the hard way, then that's fine too."

Read more world news:
Russia 'making concessions', Trump says
Four more arrests over Louvre heist
Brazil's Bolsonaro begins 27-year jail term

Carlos Diaz Rosillo, a former US deputy assistant secretary of defence during the first Trump administration, does not believe America will go to war with Venezuela.

He told The World With Dominic Waghorn: "What I do see is a strategy of maximum pressure on the regime. I do think if there's any change, that change has to come from within the military."

Dr Rosillo said the official position of the US government is not regime change, but Mr Trump would like to see that happen in Venezuela.

The case has been ongoing since 2022 and is just one of several Harry has filed against media organisations since 2019 over alleged breaches of privacy, unlawful practices and false stories.

Associated Newspapers (ANL) - which also publishes The Mail on Sunday and MailOnline - strongly denies any wrongdoing.

A full trial is not expected to start at London's High Court until January, but a pre-trial hearing, which helps manage the case and resolve any outstanding issues, is set to take place today.

Here is everything you need to know about the case.

What's alleged?

The alleged unlawful acts are said to have taken place from 1993 to 2011, including the publisher hiring private investigators to secretly place listening devices inside cars and homes and paying police officials for inside information.

When bringing the lawsuit in 2022, lawyers for the claimants said they had become aware of "highly distressing" evidence revealing they had been victims of "abhorrent criminal activity" and "gross breaches of privacy" by Associated Newspapers.

Associated Newspapers denies the allegations, describing them as "preposterous smears", and claims the legal action is "a fishing expedition by [the] claimants and their lawyers".

The accusations include:

• The hiring of private investigators to secretly place listening devices inside people's cars and homes;

• The commissioning of individuals to surreptitiously listen into and record people's live, private telephone calls while they were taking place;

• The payment of police officials, with corrupt links to private investigators, for inside, sensitive information;

• The impersonation of individuals to obtain medical information from private hospitals, clinics, and treatment centres by deception;

• The accessing of bank accounts, credit histories and financial transactions through illicit means and manipulation.

Who else is involved?

While Prince Harry is one of the key players, as a group litigation, he is not the only claimant.

The others include:

• Actress Elizabeth Hurley
• Actress Sadie Frost
• Sir Elton John and his husband, filmmaker David Furnish
• Baroness Doreen Lawrence, mother of Stephen Lawrence
• Former Liberal Democrat politician Sir Simon Hughes

They all allege they have been victims of "abhorrent criminal activity" and "gross breaches of privacy" by ANL.

David Sherborne is the lawyer representing all the claimants.

What happened in 2023?

During a preliminary hearing in March 2023, Judge Matthew Nicklin was tasked with ruling whether the case can proceed to trial.

ANL had asked for the case to be struck out entirely, arguing the legal challenges against it were brought "far too late", but David Sherborne called for the publisher's application to be dismissed.

Lawyers for the publishers said the claims fell outside the statute of limitations - a law indicating that privacy claims should be brought with six years - and the claimants should have known, or could have found out, they had a potential case before October 2016.

They also argued some aspects of the cases should be thrown out as they breach orders made by Lord Justice Leveson as part of his 2011 inquiry into media standards.

During the hearing, a number of the claimants attended the High Court, including Prince Harry, to the surprise of the British media.

Witness statements from all seven claimants were also released. The duke's statement said he is bringing the claim "because I love my country" and remains "deeply concerned" by the "unchecked power, influence and criminality" of the publisher.

"If the most influential newspaper company can successfully evade justice, then in my opinion the whole country is doomed," he said.

On 10 November 2023, Mr Justice Nicklin gave the go-ahead for the case to go to trial, saying ANL had "not been able to deliver a 'knockout blow' to the claims of any of these claimants".

What's happened since?

Earlier this year, lawyers for the claimants sought to amend their case to add a swathe of new allegations for the trial.

They argued that they should be allowed to rely on evidence that they said showed the Mail was involved in targeting Kate, the Princess of Wales.

However, Mr Justice Nicklin ruled this allegation was brought too late before trial.

In a further development in November, the High Court heard that a key witness in the case, private investigator Gavin Burrows, claimed his signature on a statement confirming alleged hacking had taken place, was forged.

In the statement from 2021, Mr Burrows allegedly claimed to have hacked voicemails, tapped landlines, and accessed financial and medical information at the request of a journalist at the Mail On Sunday.

The statement was important, as five of the seven claimants involved in the case told the court they embarked on legal action against ANL based on evidence apparently obtained by Mr Burrows.

Mr Burrows previously retracted his statement in 2023, but the court heard he reiterated the denial to ANL's lawyers in September this year.

It is now up to the claimant's lawyer Mr Sherborne to decide if he still wants to call Mr Burrows as a witness for the trial.

Mr Justice Nicklin previously said if Mr Burrows gave evidence that was inconsistent with the evidence they had obtained, then he could apply to treat him as "hostile".

Could the case end before going to trial?

In short, yes.

During pre-trial reviews, cases can either be settled or dismissed from court in both civil and criminal cases, meaning no trial will take place.

This happened in Harry's case against News Group Newspapers (NGN), which publishes The Sun. The duke made similar accusations about NGN, which involved unlawful information gathering by journalists and private investigators.

Before an up-to 10-week trial began earlier this year, it was announced both sides had "reached an agreement" and that NGN had offered an apology to Harry and would pay "substantial damages".

The settlement was reported to be worth more than £10m, mostly in legal fees.

Another of Harry's legal cases, this time against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) over accusations of historical phone hacking, did go to trial.

The trial saw Harry take to the witness box, making him the first senior royal to give evidence in a courtroom since the 19th century.

In December 2023, the Honourable Mr Justice Fancourt concluded that the duke's phone had been hacked "to a modest extent" between 2003 and 2009, and 15 of 33 articles he complained about were the product of unlawful techniques.

He was awarded £140,600 in damages. During a further hearing in February 2024 a settlement was reached between Harry and MGN over the remaining parts of his claim.

If the ANL trial does go ahead early next year, it is unknown if Harry will travel to London to attend.

At a Downing Street vigil on International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, the group said urgent reforms to policing and sentencing are needed "to address systemic failures".

Yasmin Javed, whose daughter Fawziyah Javed was killed after being pushed by her husband from Arthur's Seat in Edinburgh, said authorities had ignored Fawziyah's reports of abuse.

"It fell on deaf ears," she told Sky News, explaining that Fawziyah, 31, who was pregnant when she died, had made complaints about her husband but had been murdered days before she was set to leave him.

"We've had our hearts ripped into millions of pieces. It's not getting any easier, it's getting more and more difficult."

Kashif Anwar was convicted of Fawziyah's murder and was jailed for at least 20 years in 2023.

Tuesday's vigil highlighted key legislative amendments the families, led by campaign group Southall Black Sisters, are championing.

The amendments include Banaz's Law, named after 20-year-old Banaz Mahmod, who was subjected to an horrific assault, strangled and stuffed in a suitcase by family members on the orders of her father.

The amendment seeks to explicitly recognise "honour-based" abuse as an aggravating factor in sentencing for relevant offences.

The families also want courts to impose sentences equivalent to murder for self-harm and suicides driven by domestic and "honour"-based abuse, and say the government must ensure all women have equal access to safety and support, regardless of immigration status.

Banaz Mahmod's sister Bekhal, who testified against her relatives to help secure their conviction, said nearly two decades after the murder, efforts to protect women had not progressed.

Speaking from an undisclosed location in the witness protection scheme, she said the murder "happened in 2006, and we're almost in 2026 - that's 20 years later. Not much has changed and it's very, very disappointing.

"What happened to Banaz has happened, but what we could do is prevent it from happening to other people. I don't understand why much more hasn't been done to better the situation for others."