What's new in Reeves's spending review?
When Rachel Reeves last week tried to shift the narrative around her spending review – from one of fiscal restraint to 'spend, spend, spend' – she 'unveiled' £113 billion in infrastructure investment. But for those in Westminster with more than a short-term memory, they will have felt a distinct sense of déjà vu.
That's because much of what Reeves announced had already appeared on gov.uk more than 18 months ago. These were Conservative plans, shelved for the election, now revived under a different party banner.
Last week, Rachel Reeves announced £1.5 billion in funding to improve trams and buses in south Yorkshire. Eighteen months ago, the plans for south Yorkshire stood at £1.5 billion. In Liverpool, it's the same story: £1.6 billion then, and £1.6 billion now. The pattern repeats across the north-east, the west of England, and the Tees Valley with identical sums, unchanged from what the previous Conservative government had already put on the table.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
43 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
QUENTIN LETTS: Criticising Red China is a moreish activity. You try some and before long hanker for another plateful
China 's vice-premier He Lifeng, a big yam, is in London and spent his morning with Rachel Reeves. MPs, perhaps sensing that he (that is to say, He) might need a laugh after his ordeal, laid on a Chinese-related show in the afternoon: An urgent question attacking a 'nefarious' plan for a Chinese super-embassy in London. Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Con, Chingford & Woodford Green) led demands that planning minister Matthew Pennycook block the embassy. He and a surprising number of Labour backbenchers argued that the site was a security risk, being bang next to a telephone exchange that serves the City. 'Dark cabling' runs underneath the premises. These may be used for the transmission of delicate material. Our spooks are said to be uneasy about this, as are the Americans and, oddly, the Dutch. Much Beijing-bashing ensued. China operatives might cut those dark cables. National security was at risk. It would cost a fortune to police the site. Criticism of Red China is a moreish activity. You try some and before long you hanker for another plateful. Moreover, there is now an electoral consideration: Many British constituencies contain large numbers of Hong Kongers, some of whom worry that Chinese diplomats present a mortal threat to them. This is not a concept entirely easy to explain to President Xi, but these Hong Kongers may be swing voters. MPs therefore feel under pressure to deplore the Beijing regime. Comrade Pennycook was a credit to his profession. He stood there and repeatedly said nothing. It takes years in Communist-approved training camps to perfect this verbose art. Mr Pennycook's tongue was tied because this was a 'quasi-judicial matter' on which he, as planning supremo, would allegedly have to pass judgment. 'I cannot comment in any detail,' he regretfully told Sir James Cleverly, a former foreign secretary. 'I didn't ask for any detail!' yelped Sir James. Mr Pennycook shuffled his papers and regretted that that did not alter matters. He still could not dilate. What he possibly meant was that Sir Keir Starmer, diplomatic genius that he is, may already have given Premier Xi an undertaking that the super-embassy can proceed. Sir Iain suggested 'Project Kowtow' was under way – 'a walk of shame for the Government'. Mr Pennycook murmured: 'It would not be appropriate for me to comment.' Unhappy Labour MPs included Alex Sobel (Leeds C), burly Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) and even the House's leading Starmerite greaser, Mark Sewards (Leeds SW). It is almost unheard of for little Sewards to express anything but ravished delight at the Government's behaviour. Whips may need to check his circuit board to make sure a virus has not infected his central controls. We also had an eruption from Marie Rimmer, a magnificent old Labour pudding from St Helens who normally does as commanded by her party. Ms Rimmer, like a runaway truckle of cheese, proved hard to stop once she was rolling. 'China has a record of state-backed espionage,' she cried through some whistly-sounding teeth. 'There has been a massive under-estimation of the risk.' Deputy Speaker Nusrat Ghani tried to get her to shut up but Ms Rimmer did not notice. Bits of cheese-wheel, or at least her oratory, were by now flying here and there. Words were splintering. Sentences were disintegrating. A nearby MP took a shard of cheddar in the eye and went down like a fallen warrior. Even Beijing's most accomplished code-breakers might have struggled to understand what our Marie meant. At one point she seemed to talk of 'signals contraception'. Did she mean 'interception'? Or something else? Maybe the wheezy dinner-lady routine is a brilliant front. Maybe she is an MI6 ace under deep cover. In other news Torsten Bell, pensions minister, explained the Government's rethink on winter fuel payments. What a twerp! Arrogant young Bell's nose twitched as he pushed his excuses past a set of vegetarian-looking teeth. Rabbit with a quiff. Any pensioner would have been tempted to truncheon him with a furled brolly.
Leader Live
an hour ago
- Leader Live
Spending review is ‘settled', says Downing Street
Chancellor Rachel Reeves is expected to announce funding increases for the NHS, schools and defence along with a number of infrastructure projects on Wednesday, as she shares out some £113 billion freed up by looser borrowing rules. But other areas could face cuts as she seeks to balance manifesto commitments with more recent pledges, such as a hike in defence spending, while meeting her fiscal rules that promise to match day-to-day spending with revenues. On Monday morning, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper was the last minister still to reach a deal with the Treasury, with reports suggesting greater police spending would mean a squeeze on other areas of her department's budget. Speaking to reporters on Monday afternoon, the Prime Minister's official spokesman said: 'The spending review is settled, we will be focused on investing in Britain's renewal so that all working people are better off. 'The first job of the Government was to stabilise the British economy and the public finances, and now we move into a new chapter to deliver the promise and change.' The Government has committed to spend 2.5% of gross domestic product on defence from April 2027, with a goal of increasing that to 3% over the next parliament – a timetable which could stretch to 2034. Ms Reeves' plans will also include an £86 billion package for science and technology research and development. Last week the Chancellor admitted that she had been forced to turn down requests for funding for projects she would have wanted to back, amid the Whitehall spending wrangling. Mayor of London Sir Sadiq Khan's office is concerned that Wednesday's announcement will include no new funding or projects for London. The mayor had been looking to secure extensions to the Docklands Light Railway and Bakerloo line on the Underground, along with the power to introduce a tourist levy and a substantial increase in funding for the Metropolitan Police. A source close to the mayor said on Monday that ministers 'must not return to the damaging, anti-London approach of the last government', adding this would harm both London's public services and 'jobs and growth across the country'. They said: 'Sadiq will always stand up for London and has been clear it would be unacceptable if there are no major infrastructure projects for London announced in the spending review and the Met doesn't get the funding it needs. 'We need backing for London as a global city that's pro-business, safe and well-connected.'
Powys County Times
an hour ago
- Powys County Times
Government facing ‘walk of shame' over Chinese embassy decision
Plans for a Chinese super-embassy in central London have become a 'walk of shame' for the Government, a former leader of the Conservative Party has said. Sir Iain Duncan Smith said response by the Government to the proposed embassy near the the capital's financial district had become 'Project Kowtow', as he criticised the Government for 'one denial after another (and) one betrayal after another'. Sir Iain referred to the warnings reportedly issued by the White House and Dutch government to Downing Street over the plans, which is set to be scrutinised by ministers. The worries stem from the close proximity of the proposed embassy's Royal Mint Court site to data centres and communication cables. The Sunday Times said the US was 'deeply concerned' about the plans, quoting a senior US official. In response, planning minister Matthew Pennycook said he could not give a full response as the matter was still to come before the department for a decision, and any verdict could be challenged by the courts. Sir Iain said: 'Beijing has a recent history of cutting cables and confirmed infrastructure hacks, including embedding malware capable of disabling all that infrastructure. 'Minister Peter Kyle yesterday on television said surprisingly that this was in the planning process and could be managed. Will the minister correct this record? The planning inquiry has concluded, no changes can be made to the Chinese planning application at all. 'I'll remind him the application contains nothing about cabling. Indeed to the inquiry, the Chinese have rejected only two requests, which he referred to actually, made by the Government in the letter from the foreign and home secretaries, despite ministers regularly saying that this letter, and I quote, should give those concerned, 'comfort'.' The Conservative MP said rerouting the cables would cost millions of pounds, and asked Mr Pennycook why the Government had denied the existence of cables until the White House confirmed it. He asked Mr Pennycook to deny reports by Chinese state media, saying the UK had given the Chinese assurances that it would allow a development 'no matter what'. He added: 'I see this as Project Kowtow, one denial after another, one betrayal after another. No wonder our allies believe that this Chinese mega embassy is now becoming a walk of shame for the Government.' Mr Pennycook replied because of the 'quasi-judicial nature' of his role, he could not comment on details of the application. He also said it would not be 'appropriate' for him to comment on the cabling or national security issues. He said he did not 'recognise the characterisation' by the Sunday Times of the embassy being raised in talks between the UK and China on trade. 'It is important to also emphasise that only material planning considerations can be taken into account in determining this case,' he said. 'But, as I say, I cannot comment in any detail on a case and it is not yet before the department.' Tory shadow communities secretary Kevin Hollinrake said Parliament had been treated with disdain by the Government. Mr Hollinrake said: 'Question after question, letter after letter, the Government has consistently treated Parliament with complete disregard on this matter. Stonewalling legitimate inquiries about national security, about ministerial discussions, and warnings about security bodies.' He added: 'Why won't the Government follow the examples of the US, Australian, and Irish governments which veto similar embassies that threaten their national security? 'The Government is on the verge of making a decision that will lead to huge risk, that will persist for decades. Will they change course before it is too late?' Mr Pennycook replied: 'No decision has been made on this case. No application is yet before the department.' Marie Rimmer, Labour MP for St Helens South and Whiston, said: 'China has a track record of aggressive state-backed espionage, and surely this country cannot afford to make a massive underestimation of what risk if this would go ahead?' She added: 'We cannot not say anything in this House. We must comment on what we see, and please understand that we must do so.' Meanwhile, former security minister, Conservative MP Tom Tugendhat, asked whether the Government believed the Chinese would treat a similar application in the same way. He said: 'Do you honestly believe that thr minister thinks that the Chinese would look at this proposal in the same way? 'Do we actually in this House believe that our economic security being threatened, as highlighted by the Americans and the Dutch, would go through a bureaucratic planning process with no ability to vary it because, frankly, them's the orders? 'I don't think that's the way China would do it, and it's certainly not the way we should.' Mr Pennycook replied: 'I'm very glad that we have a different and more robust planning system than the People's Republic of China.' Later in the session, Conservative MP Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) asked if the officer considering the case is 'cleared to receive top secret information'. Mr Pennycook replied: 'A planning inspector is assessing the case as part of a public inquiry. 'And I'm afraid, while I recognise why (Mr Jopp) has asked the question, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on national security matters.'
