Defence or environment? London faces spending choices
Torn between growing geopolitical tensions and constrained public finances, Britain's finance minister Rachel Reeves is set to unveil feared trade-offs in a government spending review on Wednesday.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer is boosting the defence budget, and reports point to National Health Service (NHS) being bolstered -- forcing other key ministries to tighten their belts.
"Sharp trade-offs are unavoidable," said the Institute for Fiscal Studies, a respected think tank, of the spending plans through to 2029-2030.
Reeves, the chancellor of the exchequer, is to detail day-to-day spending plans in her review to parliament on Wednesday.
An inaugural budget in October featured tax rises and big spending announcements on infrastructure, meaning belt-tightening has to come from elsewhere.
Already in March, Labour announced contested cuts to disability welfare payments, hoping to save more than £5 billion ($6.8 billion) by the start of the next decade.
Thousands of protestors gathered in central London on Saturday, many holding placards that read "tax the rich, stop the cuts -- welfare not warfare".
The government on Sunday announced £86 billion of investment in science and technology and defence by 2030.
Reeves hopes the spending will boost sluggish growth, which risks added pressure from the tariffs trade war unleashed by US President Donald Trump.
Reeves is set to announce a funding boost of up to £30 billion for the NHS, according to The Times newspaper.
Britain's media has in recent days reported on tough, last-minute discussions between the Treasury and the interior ministry, particularly regarding the police budget, as well as with the energy department amid fears for the UK's carbon-reduction commitments.
- Defence priority -
Reeves has amended her fiscal rules to allow the government more headroom for investment in the run-up to the spending review.
At the same time, she wishes to balance the books so that tax revenues match day-to-day spending, meaning the government borrows only to invest.
The chancellor has allowed the Treasury to borrow more, particularly for infrastructure projects across the vital housing and energy sectors.
This has handed her a windfall of £113 billion over five years.
"When it comes to capital spending, government investment is set to be sustained at historically high levels in the coming years," the IFS noted.
"If spent well, this should help contribute to growth and to better public services in years to come."
Citing Russia's invasion of Ukraine, London has announced it will increase its defence budget to 2.5 percent of UK gross domestic product by 2027 -- and up to 3.0 percent by 2034, helped by cutting international aid.
"While going for growth and fixing the NHS will still be central to the Spending Review, bolstering the nation's defence is now considered an urgent pressing need," said Susannah Streeter, head of money and markets at Hargreaves Lansdown.
While seeking to cut costs, it has been reported that the Labour government may later this year announce plans to lift a cap on child benefits and reverse a decision to scrap a winter heating benefit for millions of pensioners, after a backlash over the policies from some of its party members.
Possible "U-turns on benefit and welfare spending, increased pressure to ramp up defence spending and higher borrowing costs have left the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, in a sticky position", concluded Ruth Gregory, deputy chief UK economist at Capital Economics.
"If she wishes to avoid a political backlash and/or an adverse reaction in the financial markets, she probably has little choice but to raise taxes in the Autumn Budget."
The government has already hiked a business tax that entered into force in April.
bur-ode/bcp/jkb/rmb
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
UK announces $19 billion investment in first major nuclear plant since the 1990s
LONDON (AP) — Britain will invest 14.2 billion pounds ($19 billion) to build a new nuclear station that will reduce the U.K.'s reliance on volatile international fossil fuel markets, the government said Tuesday. Officials said the investment will go into building the new Sizewell C nuclear power plant in Suffolk, on England's eastern coast, saying it will generate enough low-carbon electricity to power 6 million homes when it becomes operational in the 2030s. Prime Minister Keir Starmer said previous governments had dithered and delayed over nuclear power. No new nuclear plant has been opened in the U.K. since Sizewell B in 1995. 'Having our own energy in this country that we control, gives us security, gives us independence, so (Russian President Vladimir) Putin can't put his boot on our throat," Starmer said. 'And it means that we can control the prices in a way that we haven't been able to in recent years, which has meant very high prices for businesses, for households and for families." The government also announced that Rolls-Royce is the preferred bidder to develop a number of small modular reactors, which it said can power around 3 million homes and help fuel power-hungry industries like AI data centers. The Treasury said building Sizewell C will create 10,000 jobs. The investment announced Tuesday is in addition to 3.7 billion pounds the U.K. government already committed to the project. Nuclear power is seen as an increasingly important electricity source as the government seeks to decarbonize Britain's electricity grid by 2030, replacing fossil fuels with low-carbon power. The U.K. also wants to reduce its dependence on imported oil and gas, especially in light of soaring energy prices following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. But critics have said nuclear plants are far more expensive and slow to build compared with renewable energy options such as solar and wind power. Environmental groups have also argued Sizewell C will damage local nature reserves that host wildlife like otters and marsh birds. About 300 people joined a protest against the development at the Suffolk site over the weekend. 'Net zero is supposed to happen by 2030 — there is no way this is going to be completed by then," said Jenny Kirtley, a local resident who chairs the campaign group Together Against Sizewell C. Sylvia Hui, The Associated Press
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Child Benefit changes on cards after Martin Lewis' WhatsApp from Rachel Reeves
Child Benefit changes could be on the cards as Martin Lewis mentioned in a Newsnight appearance, in which he shared that Rachel Reeves had sent hm a WhatsApp message following the winter fuel payment u-turn. On Newsnight, the Money Saving Expert founder said: "I've been complaining about the Child Benefit Higher Income tax clawback for years, because what that does is that it says if the highest earner in the household earns over £80,000, you don't get Child Benefit. "So then you've got two neighbours who earn just under £60,000, so that's £120,000 for that family. They get Child Benefit. Their next door neighbour, one earns £80,000, one earns nothing, they don't get it. "I have been told for years that we can't split a household payment into a personal tax payment, which is exactly what the government has just done. "So when I got a WhatsApp today from Rachel Reeves telling me, 'sorry I couldn't explain to you in person', because I've been lobbying hard that we need to change on this (winter fuel payment changes), my first reply back is, 'this is wonderful news, and I am relieved, and this is a massive improvement, and I think it will take a lot of pressure off a lot of vulnerable people'. But I did also say, 'by the way, can we now do it for Child Benefit'?." The high-income child benefit charge applies if you or your partner earn more than £60,000. Under current rules, you need to file a self-assessment tax return to pay the charge, but it was mentioned in the Spring Statement that this will soon be available to pay directly through PAYE. Once registered with HMRC, parents should be able to choose to have their HICBC collected through their monthly pay packet, meaning they'll no longer need to file a return for that purpose. "I got a Whatsapp today from Rachel Reeves..." Martin Lewis tells @vicderbyshire he has been texting the Chancellor on how her Winter Fuel U-turn could pave the way for a new approach to Child Benefit payments. #Newsnight — BBC Newsnight (@BBCNewsnight) June 9, 2025 From April 7 2025, parents receive £26.05 a week (£1,355 a year) for their eldest or only child and £17.25 a week (£897 a year) for each additional child. These figures are a 1.7% increase on the £1,331 a year for the eldest child and £881 a year for each additional child paid in 2024-25 For now, if your income is over the threshold, you can choose to either get Child Benefit payments and pay any tax charge at the end of each tax year, or opt out of getting payments and not pay the tax charge. You should still fill in the Child Benefit claim form. You need to state on the form that you do not want to get payments. You need to fill in the claim form if you want to: get National Insurance credits, which count towards your State Pension get your child a National Insurance number without them having to apply for one - they'll usually get the number before they turn 16 years old Recommended reading: Some parents are owed thousands by HMRC - check if you are eligible Need a last-minute Father's Day gift? We've got it covered Family holidays for less than £250 across France, Spain and Italy No, and this is the cause of a great deal of confusion, as Martin Lewis has explained on his website Money Saving Expert. "Child Benefit is a universal payment made for every child you have," he says. "It should accurately be called the 'two-child limit for Universal Credit or Tax Credits'. "This one applies to the benefits that people who have low incomes, whether they're working or not working, get. That's what this is about. "And in simple terms, it means if you have more than two children, then you won't get any additional benefit for the costs that they are incurring you (on Universal Credit and Tax Credits)."
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Voices: Wes Streeting has won the spending review – but will he blow his winnings?
If Rachel Reeves did the spending review like a game show, she could invite her cabinet colleagues to 'come on down' the catwalk between the two red lines in the Commons, to music and strobe lights, to take their seats on the front bench. She could announce the winners of the competition for public funding over the next three years in reverse order, with David Lammy, the foreign secretary – who has lost a big chunk of his foreign aid budget – going first, followed by Heidi Alexander, the transport secretary, and Steve Reed, environment. The last to be summoned, as the ABBA soundtrack switches from 'Money, Money, Money' to 'The Winner Takes It All', would be Wes Streeting, the health secretary, who has been allocated spending increases of 2.8 per cent a year more than inflation over the three years from next year to 2029. Arms in the air, in a sequinned jacket, as glitter falls from the ceiling, Streeting would take his place next to John Healey, the defence secretary, at the top of the line of winners and losers. Sadly, the announcement of spending plans for the rest of this parliament will be less showbiz. Reeves will try to generate a bit of excitement, and maybe even some waving of order papers, by spinning the big and welcome increase in capital investment – although she has already cannibalised some of her good news stories with her transport infrastructure announcement last week and the go-ahead for Sizewell C nuclear power station today. The problem with the capital projects, though, is that they will not start until 2027 at the earliest, so they won't have delivered anything except feelgood press releases before the next election. Whereas the big increase in day-to-day spending on the NHS is the kind of vote-winning largesse for which Labour MPs are desperate. In the absence of glitter and balloons, the waving of order papers will be compulsory on the government benches at this point. But wait: who is this, coming to spoil the party? It is the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), performing its constitutional role of puncturing inflated government claims. Labour, having used the IFS to attack the Conservatives at fiscal events over the previous 14 years, will find that the tables have turned (even if the Treasury insists that this is not a 'fiscal event' – it is merely allocating a spending total set at the Budget). Max Warner and Ben Zaranko of the IFS have written a paper for the Oxford Review of Economic Policy entitled 'Future challenges for health and social care provision in the UK'. It contains some startling facts, such as that, by the middle of the next decade, the NHS will employ 10 per cent of the entire workforce of England. It also contains a striking table showing the increase in the number of doctors and nurses employed in the NHS since 2019, and the increase in treatments. There are 18 per cent more consultants, 32 per cent more resident doctors (who were called junior doctors in the old days, a year ago) and 23 per cent more nurses and health visitors, which are huge increases in just five years. But the outputs from such dramatic increases have been disappointing. Hospital admissions have risen by just 9 per cent (except A&E admissions, up 2 per cent), and outpatient appointments have increased by just 12 per cent. The IFS authors comment: 'The large fall in NHS hospital productivity since the start of the pandemic complicates the picture.' They say there are two scenarios for the future: 'The optimistic view is that there is substantial scope for 'catch-up' improvements in productivity: merely returning to pre-pandemic levels would represent a considerable improvement. The more pessimistic view is that the pandemic has permanently lowered NHS productivity, because of the ongoing impacts of Covid-19 on patient health and complexity and changes to working practices or expectations.' They tentatively conclude that there are recent signs that NHS productivity is recovering, but the loss of capacity is still alarming. Despite the huge amounts of extra spending devoted to the NHS since the election, and promised for the next three years, no one in the think tanks that specialise in the health service thinks that Labour's targets will be hit by the next election. Will Streeting, the lucky winner of the spending review showdown, be able to convince the voters that he has spent their money well?
