With days to go until Labour's first Budget in 14 years, Chancellor Rachel Reeves has confirmed that spending has been finalised across all government departments. "There are no balloons left in the chief secretary's office," she told BBC Radio 5 Live, referring to a Whitehall tradition of popping balloons representing each department as funding deals are agreed.

Her debut Budget is expected to include an array of revenue-raising changes to plug a £40 billion hole in the public finances without breaking the party's pledge to cover day-to-day spending without additional borrowing.

What did the commentators say?
"Labour's core mandate was restoration of public services and the social fabric," said Robert Shrimsley in the Financial Times. "Voters knew taxes would rise", but Keir Starmer's "implicit promise was that Labour would be moderate in this". Reeves promised to "fix the foundations" of the economy, and she would be "unwise to disappoint". She must "live with attacks" over the high tax burden in the hope she can "pare it back later".

Two "fundamental but straightforward" questions should guide the chancellor's thinking, said Labour MP and former shadow chancellor John McDonnell in The Guardian. "The first is what society do you want to create? The second is what are the economic measures that will aid its creation?"

Labour's "historic mission" has been to build a society with "decent wages, access to health services and education not dependent on what you could pay, and housing you could afford" – and, most importantly, "a safety net" to protect the most vulnerable. "Any budget under a Labour government since then should be measured on its contribution to achieving this mission."

What next?
Speculation is rife about which taxes might rise following Wednesday's Budget, as Labour promises to stick to its manifesto pledge not to increase taxes on "working people".

There has been a "lack of clarity" over how the government defines "working people", said the BBC. Starmer told reporters that a "broad definition" of a working person was someone who "works for a living and through that gets their income" but can't "routinely write a big cheque if they get into difficulties".

The world's richest man has been throwing his enormous wealth behind Donald Trump's presidential campaign for some time. But now Elon Musk has upped the ante by giving $1 million each day to a randomly chosen registered voter in a key swing state who signs a petition created by his pro-Trump group, America PAC.

"I think this is kind of fun," the Tesla CEO and X owner said last Saturday, as he introduced his first newly minted millionaire. But legal experts are divided as to whether the practice "violates a federal ban on paying people to register to vote", said Politico.

'Deeply concerning'
Paying people to vote or register to vote is illegal, but Musks's allies argue that the giveaway is within the bounds of federal election law because he is "not directly paying for voter registration", said The New York Times, "but rather for a petition signature that happens to be open only to registered voters".

Responding to a post on X that said he was "paying to register Republicans", Musk wrote that winners "can be from any or no political party and you don't even have to vote". Theoretically, registered Democrat voters can sign the petition to get a shot at the prize, and then vote for Kamala Harris.

But Pennsylvania's Democrat governor, Josh Shapiro, told NBC News that the giveaway was "deeply concerning" and "something that law enforcement could take a look at".

'Legal loophole'
The US Department of Justice sent a warning letter to America PAC officials on Wednesday that said the sweepstake could "violate federal law against offering incentives such as cash or prizes to induce voter registration", said CNN. That day, the PAC didn't announce a winner, but two were announced on Thursday.

DOJ officials and Musk's political group declined to comment on the case. Jeremy Paul, a law professor at Northeastern University, told the BBC that Musk "may have found a legal loophole". But if Musk was "warned that this is illegal activity and continued to do it", it "would create a different kind of situation", UCLA professor Richard Hasen told NCR.

Gloucestershire: Dunkirk Manor House, Stroud
A spectacular Grade II* Georgian mansion with 17th century origins. 6 suites, 2 further beds, family bath, breakfast room, kitchen, 4 receps, study, self- contained 2-bed apartment, garden. £2.25m; Hamptons

Somerset: Compton Farmhouse, South Petherton
A unique and elegant Grade II period home in a peaceful setting. 4 beds, family bath, kitchen/breakfast room, 2 receps, study, barn, gardens. £600,000; Symonds & Sampson

Suffolk: Depden Hall, Bury St. Edmunds
Historic Grade II moated country home in a secluded position, with approx. 25 acres of grounds and a grass tennis court. 2 suites, 6 further beds, 2 baths, kitchen/breakfast room, 5 receps, outbuildings. £3m; John D. Wood & Co

Devon: Smugglers Cottage, Dittisham
An idyllic retreat on the banks of the River Dart. 4 beds, 2 baths, kitchen, 3 receps, boat house. OIEO £1.75m; Knight Frank 

West Sussex: The Orchards, Fittleworth
Charming Grade II cottage in an exquisite position within the hamlet of Bedham. 3 beds, family bath, kitchen/ breakfast room, 2 receps, games room, swimming pool, gardens, garage. £1.5m; Knight Frank

Armed police have a dangerous job, but that doesn't mean they should be less accountable
Gaby Hinsliff in The Guardian
Police chiefs are "demanding more safeguards against prosecution" after the Met firearms officer who shot Chris Kaba was acquitted of murder, says Gaby Hinsliff. But Home Secretary Yvette Cooper cannot "let herself be held to ransom". Yes, "we expect extraordinary things" of armed officers, but "the same is true of brain surgery, and that doesn't render surgeons above the law". The Home Office can't "settle for whatever level of scrutiny the Met is grudgingly prepared to accept".

Labour's regulator will destroy English football
David Frost in The Telegraph
"You may think football should stay on the sports pages," writes David Frost, but the government's proposed new football regulator is "a parable for our times". The watchdog will have powers to "intervene" on the distribution of funds between leagues and clubs, ticket prices and proposals to move stadiums, as well as "diversity and inclusion". And that means everyone will start "to focus on lobbying the regulator rather than running the industry", which "will weaken the English game".

Why I miss the bitchy fashion police
Kathleen Stock on UnHerd
"Do you remember" when women on television could be "exhilaratingly rude about what other women looked like without everyone else being Deeply Disappointed?" asks Kathleen Stock. In the Noughties, Trinny and Susannah offered "brutal" assessments on "What Not to Wear", but the show had "more redeeming features" too: chiefly, the idea that "every imperfection can be disguised with artful tricks". Today's enforced "body positivity" hasn't prevented the increasing norm of "chopping old bits off as well as inserting new ones".