People on £10,000 to £96,000 tell us what they want from the Spending Review
This week the government will set out how much it is going to spend over the next four years on the public services that millions of people use every day.
That includes the NHS, schools and public transport as well as welfare benefits, armed forces, energy projects and a whole range of other government spending.
We asked a handful of readers, who had contacted the BBC via Your Voice, Your BBC News, what they would like to see in Wednesday's announcement.
Lewis Eager, 26, works two shifts a week in the on-demand delivery service for a supermarket in Southend-on-Sea, earning £850 a month. He lives with his parents who he pays £120 a month.
He would like the Spending Review to include a plan to help young people like him find well-paid, full-time jobs.
Lewis completed a business administration apprenticeship and an Open University degree, but says he cannot find full-time work.
He estimates he has applied for more than 4,000 jobs without success.
"Getting knocked down all the time is horrible."
Even entry-level jobs seem to require experience, he says.
He sees a "looming crisis" among young people unable to get on the jobs ladder, and would like to see more money go into adult education.
"I live with my parents which I have nothing against, but I thought I would have achieved more by now," he says.
Resheka Senior, 39, is a nursery nurse and her husband Marcus, 49, a school caretaker. Between them they take home more than £50,000 a year. But the couple say they are still struggling, particularly while Resheka is on maternity leave.
When she goes back to work, Resheka says she won't be much better off because she will have to pay for childcare before and after school for her five-year-old and all day for the younger children, aged two and nine-months.
They have debts that they are shuffling between credit cards and no prospect of moving out of their two-bedroom council flat in Woolwich, London.
"I don't want to stay at home. I've been working since I was 15 years old," says Resheka. But she would like to see more support for couples who are "making an honest living".
She wants the government to pay for free breakfast and afterschool clubs or more free childcare on top of the 30 hours a week currently provided.
"It's not as if I'm saying I want benefits," she says. "We're putting back into the economy. We just need some help."
Ollie Vass works for a nutritional supplement company, where he earns £31,000. His girlfriend Grace Sangster also 19 is on an apprenticeship scheme earning £40,000.
They each started saving from the age of 13, earning money mowing lawns and working in restaurants.
In April, with the help of a small inheritance and their Lifetime ISAs, the couple completed on a £360,000 two-bedroomed terraced house near Slough.
Ollie and Grace would like to see more support for young people starting out, especially first-time buyers, and more apprenticeships.
They also think the tax-free allowance, which has been frozen since 2021 should rise so that people on low wages can keep more of their earnings.
Ollie also wants to see cheaper rail fares: "At the moment it's too expensive to use."
Leah Daniel, 23, and her partner are entitled to £800 a month in Universal Credit and the council pays £900 a month rent for the flat in Birmingham they share with their two-year old daughter.
But currently around £100 a month is being deducted from their Universal Credit to pay for advances they took while homeless for a short time.
Leah says they run out of money every month and have to borrow from friends and family, sometimes having to skip meals to make sure their daughter is fed.
If the government decides to cut the welfare budget in the Spending Review, that would be "absolutely heartless", she says.
"It's one thing to make sure the country's growing and we aren't wasting money and people aren't taking advantage of the system.
"It's another thing if you aren't giving more support to help people out of poverty and help them look for work," she says.
Above all she and her partner want stable jobs so they can "build up their lives".
"So many times we haven't eaten and we're worried about tomorrow," she says. "I just want this situation to change."
As a GP and practice partner earning £96,000 a year, Dr Kirsty Rogerson says she is aware she is well-off.
She and her husband, a hospital consultant, own their own house, and are putting some money aside to support their sons through university.
But she sees plenty of people in her surgery in Sheffield who aren't so fortunate and face what she thinks are impossible choices.
If she could choose one thing for the government to take action on it would be to subsidise fresh fruit and vegetables and make processed food more expensive.
"What [the government] shouldn't be doing is just tackling it at the other end with weight loss drugs," she says. "That's going to bankrupt the NHS."
She would also like to see more money spent on public services.
"As a mother, I'd rather pay more tax and know my children were being well educated and there's a good healthcare system," says Dr Kirsty Rogerson. The same goes for the police.
"I'd rather go to bed each night knowing those things were there," she says.
Sylvia Cook, 72, used to sell accounting software, then published books about Greece, before she retired.
Living on a pension of £20,000 means being careful with her outgoings, so she welcomes the government's u-turn on winter fuel payments as "a good decision, if a little late".
The extra £200 "obviously eases things", she says.
But in general she thinks that rather than increasing spending, the government should look at where it can save money.
"You can spend a lot of money and achieve nothing," she says.
Instead she suggests changes to the tax system, efficiency savings across government and cutting perks for MPs and civil servants.
"There are so many inefficient things they haven't got the common sense to sort out."
The health service is a case in point she says.
"Throwing more money at the NHS doesn't necessarily help if they don't sort that out," she says.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Bloomberg
2 hours ago
- Bloomberg
What to Expect From Reeves' UK Spending Review
00:00 James, what can we expect then from this spending review for the chancellor. A crucial day for her and her team. What are you going to be scrutinizing? I mean, the reason it's crucial is this is a fifth of the UK economy in size 600 billion a year. We know that 200 billion is going to be the NHS, 39 billion defence. 94 in education, what is happening to the rest and also what is happening to the 134 billion they've put aside for capital investment? Of that we expect to see some go to housing roughly 40 billion and some get around investment. They've announced that 15 billion. This is the moment that Rachel Reeves says I was elected a Labour chancellor to do X and we find out what X is today and they're going to lean in. The expectations are they will lean in to that £134 billion, I should say, capital expenditures plan. That's the kind of headline they want to be pushing. What what is this going to mean for that for the chancellor who's seen the ratings in terms of the polls, not just for her, but the prime minister as well plummet on some of these decisions? Is this kind of a break, a make or break moment for the chancellor? How decisive is this moment going to be for that for the head of the UK Treasury? The way I would explain it is today we are casting a political die as the government, not the polls, not the politics, but the economics. The cold, hard cash. The shape of the next election will be decided today. The last spending review was done in Covid by Rishi Sunak, the one before that was 2015 pre Brexit. That's the kind of size of the event we are talking about today. And like you say, this could be the comeback moment for the Chancellor. Where growth comes from, this investment comes from this private sector is rejuvenated from this. It could also be the moment we find some quite difficult cuts and we find out about very tough decisions the UK Government will have to take in the years going forward.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Funeral row causes chaos for mourners of Zambia's ex-president
Arranging a funeral can be testing at the best of times - let alone for a former head of state. Amid that intense, initial stage of grief, loved ones must juggle cost, the wishes of the deceased and numerous other factors in order to throw a fitting send-off. Add the clashing desires of a national government and its political opponents into the mix, and things become doubly complicated. Edgar Lungu, who led Zambia from 2015 to 2021, died last Thursday. His death at the age of 68 has shocked Zambians - and there is genuine sense of grief with all radio stations playing gospel music for the man who had remained influential in Zambian politics despite being barred from contesting last year's election. Zambia is officially a Christian country - and most people take their religion and periods of mourning seriously. But a standoff between his family, the government and Lungu's political party, the Patriotic Front (PF), has left mourners confused about how exactly the former president should be honoured. The government announced there would be a state funeral and declared that the official venue for mourning would be a lodge it owns in the capital, Lusaka, but the PF dismissed this plan, directing mourners to its headquarters instead. As for Lungu's family, they have said they are not opposed to a state funeral, but have insisted on choosing who will preside over it, family lawyer Makebi Zulu has told the BBC. Then there is the official book of condolence, in which mourners can pay tributes to Lungu. The government has set up an official book - at the lodge - but the PF has urged people to sign theirs instead - at their headquarters. The government wanted to repatriate his body from South Africa last week - Lungu died there after receiving treatment for an undisclosed illness. However, the PF and Lungu's family intervened, wanting to organise the safe passage of the ex-leader themselves. "The state was saying, 'We are giving him full military honours, therefore we're taking over from here' - as if to say that 'you have no say over what happens,'" Mr Zulu said. Plans for returning Lungu's remains are still unclear, though the family are now engaging with the government on this issue. There has also been confusion over the "official" mourning period when all forms of entertainment like big football matches and concerts are stopped. The government declared a seven-day national mourning period starting last Saturday, even though the PF announced one days earlier. This chaos is, in short, a continuation of the tumultuous relationship between Lungu and his successor, President Hakainde Hichilema. The pair are long-time rivals - in 2017, when Lungu was president, he had Hichilema locked up for over 100 days on treason charges after Hichilema's motorcade allegedly refused to give way for him. It took the intervention of the Commonwealth for Hichilema to be released. Four years later, and after five attempts at the presidency, Hichilema defeated Lungu. Now, the PF and the Lungu family's lawyer are accusing Hichilema's government of being partly responsible for the former president's death. Lungu returned to frontline politics in 2023, frequently accusing Hichilema's government of victimising him and other PF members. Now, after Lungu's death, his party allege that Lungu was banned from leaving the country for years and that if he had been allowed to travel to seek medical treatment sooner, he might still be alive. The government has vehemently denied any responsibility for Lungu's death, with spokesperson Cornelius Mweetwa insisting that the ex-president was never prohibited from travelling. Mr Mweetwa told the BBC that the PF was trying to use Lungu's death as a "springboard" for a "political comeback". It is not the first time conflict has broken out following a Zambian leader's death. In 2021, the family of Kenneth Kaunda, the country's first post-independence president, said he wanted to be laid to rest next to his wife and not at the site designated by the government. Despite this, the government went ahead and buried Kaunda at Embassy Memorial Park in Lusaka. "The High Court ruled that national interest takes precedence over individual or family preferences because there is a designated burial place for former presidents, and there is a designated set of protocol to handle those proceedings that are conducted by the state, not a political party," Mr Mweetwa said. This argument - about the state's rights to a dead president's body - has played out numerous times across Africa. In 2019, Robert Mugabe died almost two years after being unseated as Zimbabwe's president by his former right-hand man, Emmerson Mnangagwa. Mugabe's family refused to allow him to be buried at the national Heroes' Acre, arguing that he had been betrayed by his former colleagues. After a bitter feud, the man who had led Zimbabwe to independence was laid to rest after his state funeral in his home village. But a legal row rumbles on over his burial site, with some still wanting him to be interred at Heroes' Acre, where a mausoleum has now been completed for him. And loved ones rarely won such disputes. The relatives of Angola's José Eduardo dos Santos and various Ghanaian presidents have clashed with the government over post-death arrangements, but all eventually had to yield to the state. In Lungu's case, the government has the constitution - the supreme law of the land - behind it, but the PF has significant clout as the former leader's long-time political home. In an attempt to break the standoff, the government has sent envoys to South Africa to negotiate with Lungu's family, where a private memorial service was held at Pretoria's Sacred Heart Cathedral on Tuesday - organised by the PF. This was attended by his widow and daughter and where it was announced to the congregation that the former president's body would not be flown home on Wednesday as had been expected. So for those in Zambia, there is still no clear direction on how to send off the nation's sixth president. 'My son is a drug addict, please help' - the actor breaking a Zambian taboo An ancient writing system confounding myths about Africa Zambia president orders ministers to stop sleeping in cabinet Go to for more news from the African continent. Follow us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa or on Instagram at bbcafrica Africa Daily Focus on Africa
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump vows to 'liberate' Los Angeles as mayor imposes curfew
The mayor of Los Angeles has imposed a night-time curfew for part of downtown as a fifth day of clashes over President Donald Trump's immigration raids erupted in America's second-biggest city. Karen Bass said she was declaring an emergency as businesses were being vandalised and looted. Nearly 200 people were arrested in the city on Tuesday. Trump defended his decision to deploy 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to LA, vowing to "liberate" the city and prevent it being "conquered by a foreign enemy". The immigration raids that triggered the protests last Friday are continuing with National Guard troops now protecting border control agents on enforcement operations. Chaotic protests also sprung up on Tuesday night in cities around the country, from Seattle to Chicago: Texas Governor Greg Abbott sent National Guard troops to San Antonio, where immigration rallies are being planned In Atlanta, Georgia, riot police used tear gas on protesters who fired fireworks towards officers at a demonstration attended by hundreds NYPD told the BBC "multiple" arrests were made after some protesters failed to disperse after several thousand marched into lower Manhattan LA's mayor told reporters earlier: "I have declared a local emergency and issued a curfew for downtown Los Angeles to stop the vandalism, to stop the looting." The order affects one-square-mile of LA where the protests have been concentrated and will be in effect beginning on Tuesday night from 20:00 PST (04:00 GMT) until Wednesday morning at 06:00 PST. Live updates from the protests Los Angeles police responding to the protests made 197 arrests on Tuesday, up from 114 on Monday, 40 on Sunday and 27 on Saturday, Bass told Tuesday's press conference. The mayor said 23 businesses had been looted on Monday night, though she did not provide an estimate of financial losses to the city from all the at-times violent disorder. "We reached a tipping point," she said of her decision to impose a curfew. The unrest has been restricted to pockets of the sprawling city. For much of Los Angeles it was a normal Tuesday as tens of thousands of children went to school, commuter traffic choked the streets and tourists strolled Hollywood Boulevard. LA police chief Jim McDonnell said the curfew was "not about silencing voices", but was a necessary measure to save lives and safeguard property. Bass also said Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had provoked the unrest by conducting raids on Latino areas in the city in recent days. "If [the raids are] going to go on for 30 days, and that's what the rumour is, and, if we want to see our city peaceful again, I will call upon the administration one more time to end the raids," she said. On Tuesday, National Guard troops, who were previously guarding federal buildings, began assisting ICE agents with their "daily enforcement operations", a spokesperson for the agency told the BBC. Marines were guarding federal officials and property on Tuesday, Marines Corps General Eric Smith said. They do not have arrest authority. Everything we know about the demonstrations Trump's deportation drive is perfect storm in city of immigrants Could Trump invoke the Insurrection Act? The military deployment to the LA area will cost $134m (£99m), the Pentagon said. Addressing troops at Fort Bragg in North Carolina, Trump described the protests as a "full-blown assault on peace and public order". The Republican president said he plans to use "every asset at our disposal to quell the violence and restore order right away". In televised remarks on Tuesday night, California's Governor Gavin Newsom hit back at Trump's unusual deployment of the military for a domestic law-enforcement matter. "This brazen abuse of power by a sitting president inflamed a combustible situation, putting our people, our officers, and even our National Guard, at risk," he says. Earlier in the day a federal court denied an emergency request from California to block the use of troops sent to Los Angeles. District Judge Charles Breyer scheduled a hearing on the motion for Thursday.