Labour’s manifesto will include a plan to officially recognize a Palestinian state “as part of the peace process," The Independent revealed.

The audacious new initiative also takes a swing at "Israel", arguing that "neighbors should not be able to veto" the recognition of Palestine.

Read more: Norway PM lists reasons why Palestine must be recognized as state

With thousands of Labour members partaking in pro-Palestine demonstrations and worries of British Muslims abandoning the party, Starmer has moved to attempt to reunite the divided sections ahead of the election. Divisions in the party have resulted in massive fractures between its left and center, and Muslim voters punishing the party in last month's local elections.

With Labour letting go of pro-Palestine candidates, including Faiza Shaheen, the candidate for Chingford and Woodford Green, who was replaced by a member of the Jewish Labour Movement, this step might have come too late, as it remains difficult to convince the voters who were angered by Starmer's staunch support for "Israel".

Having candidates such as pro-"Israel" campaigner Luke Akehurst in North Durham and head of legal affairs Alex Barros-Curtis, who led the antisemitism campaign, with Jeremy Corbyn in Cardiff West has only exacerbated differences.

The overall agenda looks to be geared at forming a broad coalition of support for Labour among businesses, unions, and Labour activists.

There will be a pledge to "end exploitative contracts" in the much-debated new arrangement for workers, which some think could include zero-hours contracts. The practice of fire and hire, as seen with P&O Ferries, is also to be abolished.

The new agreement is defined as "a partnership between business and trade unions" in general. There is, however, a pledge not to eliminate collective bargaining agreements, as they exist in some industries, which is interpreted as a promise not to establish new pay-review boards.

The manifesto is more than 50 pages long and organized around Starmer's five aims. Officially set to be released next week, it shows support for NATO and a pledge to reduce immigration, but with no clear objective or timescale.

Labour has also pledged not to raise the three major taxes – VAT, income tax, and national insurance – but has promised targeted tax hikes.

He has pledged a "mission-led government" but has been criticized for backing down on past promises, such as abolishing tuition fees and nationalizing certain services. He also dropped his intentions for a £28 billion green deal.

Labour accuses Sunak of lying '11 times about party's tax proposals'

The UK Treasury has publicly denied Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's assertion that its unbiased staff calculated that the opposition Labour Party would "put up everyone's taxes by £2,000."

Sunak claimed during a televised discussion on Tuesday ahead of the July election, in which he and Labour leader Keir Starmer fought on subjects ranging from the cost of living and immigration to the status of the NHS.

"Independent Treasury officials have costed Labour's policies and they amount to a £2,000 tax rise for every working family," Sunak stated. The Conservative Party's leader later reiterated the accusation.

On the eve of the debate, James Bowler, the Treasury's most senior civil servant, reported that employees in his department had not drafted the figure, which appeared in a Conservative Party campaign brochure.

In a letter dated June 3 posted on X by senior Labour Party official Darren Jones, Bowler stated that "civil servants were not involved in the production or presentation of the Conservative Party's document 'Labour's Tax Rises' or in the calculation of the total figure used."

According to the campaign leaflet, Labour would need to find £38.5 billion ($49.2 billion) to satisfy all of its expenditure plans, either by borrowing or hiking taxes by "£2,094 per working household over the next four years," while claiming that "almost every costing" was conducted by the Treasury.

In his letter to Labour, Bowler stated that he had warned senior Conservative Party officials and advisors against claiming that the £38.5 billion number was based on an estimation from the Treasury, citing that any costings derived from other sources or organizations "should not be presented as having been produced by the Civil Service."