Reeves sets out spending review as Labour government ‘moves to new phase'
Rachel Reeves said 'we are renewing Britain' as she set out how she plans to spend hundreds of billions of pounds of taxpayers' money.
The Chancellor said total departmental budgets would grow by 2.3% a year in real terms and promised a 'record cash investment' in the NHS, amounting to an extra £29 billion a year.
Setting out the spending review in the House of Commons, Ms Reeves said the tax hikes and looser borrowing rules allowed her to spend £190 billion more on the day-to-day running of public services and £113 billion on investment.
The review marks a watershed moment for the Government, almost a year after Labour's election landslide.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer told the Cabinet that the spending review 'marks the end of the first phase of this Government, as we move to a new phase that delivers on the promise of change for working people all around the country and invests in Britain's renewal'.
In a sign of the difficulties which face Sir Keir and the Chancellor, migrants continued to cross the English Channel in small boats on Wednesday.
Ms Reeves promised funding of up to £280 million more per year by the end of the spending review period in 2028/29 for the new Border Security Command and committed to end spending on hotels for asylum seekers by the next election.
In an attack on the Conservative legacy, she said: 'The party opposite left behind a broken system: billions of pounds of taxpayers' money spent on housing asylum seekers in hotels, leaving people in limbo and shunting the cost of failure onto local communities.
'We won't let that stand.'
She said 'we will be ending the costly use of hotels to house asylum seekers, in this Parliament' with funding to cut the asylum backlog, hear more appeal cases and return those with no right to be in the UK.
The plan would save taxpayers' £1 billion a year, Ms Reeves said.
The Chancellor said her 'driving purpose' was 'to make working people, in all parts of our country, better off' as she promised cash to rebuild schools and hospitals, confirmed funding for nuclear power schemes and major transport projects across the country.
She said the Government would set out plans for 'Northern Powerhouse Rail' in the coming weeks and an additional £3.5 billion to upgrade the TransPennine route.
'We are renewing Britain,' she said. 'But I know that too many people in too many parts of our country are yet to feel it.'
As well as changing Treasury rules to support investment in England's regions, Ms Reeves said the spending review period would provide £52 billion for Scotland, £20 billion for Northern Ireland and £23 billion for Wales.
She said research and development funding would rise to more than £22 billion a year and promised £2 billion for the artificial intelligence action plan 'because home-grown AI has the potential to solve diverse and daunting challenges as well as the opportunity for good jobs and investment in Britain'.
The Chancellor promised a cash increase of £4.5 billion a year for the core schools budget by the end of the spending review period, but also pledged up to £2.3 billion a year to repair 'crumbling classrooms' and £2.4 billion for a programme to rebuild schools.
Police 'spending power' – implying extra cash raised from council tax – will rise by 2.3% a year in real terms over the review period, providing more than £2 billion for forces.
Sharon Graham, general secretary of Unite, said: 'Workers and communities need to see action now, promises of jobs can't always be promised for tomorrow and never actually be delivered.
'This must include a comprehensive and tangible jobs agenda that deals with the wave of job losses on the horizon, for example in the oil and gas industry.
'We need a joined up industrial strategy that sees investment in Grangemouth and much-needed procurement decisions on buying British in defence.
'Growth and profits need to convert to jobs and wages.
'Today was a missed opportunity to lay out the funding to tackle key issues, including the energy costs crippling British industry and the local authority debt which is straight-jacketing services in our communities.
'Spending cuts will be seen as austerity, those are the facts. Labour needs to pick up the pace on change otherwise it will be stuck in the political slow lane while other voices get louder.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Rachel Reeves 'a gnat's whisker' from having to raise taxes, says IFS
Rachel Reeves is a "gnat's whisker" away from having to raise taxes in the autumn budget, a leading economist has warned - despite the chancellor insisting her plans are "fully funded". Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), said "any move in the wrong direction" for the economy before the next fiscal event would "almost certainly spark more tax rises". 'Sting in the tail' in chancellor's plans - politics latest Speaking the morning after she delivered her spending review, which sets government budgets until 2029, Ms Reeves told hiking taxes wasn't inevitable. "Everything I set out yesterday was fully costed and fully funded," she told Sky News Breakfast. Her plans - which include £29bn for day-to-day NHS spending, £39bn for affordable and social housing, and boosts for defence and transport - are based on what she set out in October's budget. That budget, her first as chancellor, included controversial tax hikes on employers and increased borrowing to help public services. Chancellor won't rule out tax rises The Labour government has long vowed not to raise taxes on "working people" - specifically income tax, national insurance for employees, and VAT. Ms Reeves refused to completely rule out tax rises in her next budget, saying the world is "very uncertain". The Conservatives have claimed she will almost certainly have to put taxes up, with shadow chancellor Mel Stride accusing her of mismanaging the economy. Taxes on businesses had "destroyed growth" and increased spending had been "inflationary", he told Sky News. New official figures showed the economy contracted in April by 0.3% - more than expected. It coincided with Donald Trump imposing tariffs across the world. Ms Reeves admitted the figures were "disappointing" but pointed to more positive figures from previous months. Read more: 'Sting in the tail' She is hoping Labour's plans will provide more jobs and boost growth, with major infrastructure projects "spread" across the country - from the Sizewell C nuclear plant in Suffolk, to a rail line connecting Liverpool and Manchester. But the IFS said further contractions in the economy, and poor forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility, would likely require the chancellor to increase the national tax take once again. It said her spending review already accounted for a 5% rise in council tax to help local authorities, labelling it a "sting in the tail" after she told Sky's Beth Rigby that it wouldn't have to go up.
Fox News
4 hours ago
- Fox News
Former AG Barr shreds Gavin Newsom's 'nonsense' legal claims as Trump sends in troops to quell LA riots
Former Attorney General Bill Barr criticized California Gov. Gavin Newsom's legal challenge to President Donald Trump's decision to deploy National Guard troops in response to recent riots in the state. Appearing on "The Story" Wednesday, Barr dismissed Newsom's lawsuit as unfounded. "[Newsom's] comments, his legal arguments are nonsense, they can't be taken seriously," Barr said. The lawsuit targets Trump's authority to federalize the National Guard without the permission of the state's governor. Newsom argues that the president overstepped his constitutional bounds when he called in troops, while the Trump administration maintains the move is well within federal powers. "The National Guard is an asset that can be used by the states for state purposes, but it also can be federalized and used by federal government for federal purposes," Barr explained. "This has happened throughout our history." According to a recent court filing, administration lawyers argue that the president is under "no obligation" to consult with or notify a state governor before activating the National Guard for federal use. Trump invoked a federal statute that allows the use of military forces in cases of "rebellion or danger of a rebellion" against the U.S. government. Newsom contends the unrest does not rise to that threat level and insists deploying troops only escalated tensions. "Sending trained warfighters onto the streets is unprecedented and threatens the very core of our democracy," Newsom said in a statement earlier this week. "Donald Trump is behaving like a tyrant, not a President. We ask the court to immediately block these unlawful actions." The legal battle intensified after Newsom sought a temporary restraining order to block the deployment. On Tuesday night, a federal judge denied the immediate request but scheduled a hearing for Thursday to consider the state's motion. Barr defended the administration's legal stance, saying the federal law in question has long allowed the president to deploy the National Guard both domestically and abroad. "The very same provision that's being used here is used when the president has, throughout our history, sent National Guard troops overseas," Barr said. "The statute is clear that when the president makes that decision, the troops shall serve as directed by the president. The governors cannot veto the federal government's use of the National Guard." The Los Angeles riots broke out in response to federal immigration raids, with the White House sending in National Guard troops to protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers and federal buildings. Despite the unrest, the Department of Homeland Security says it has continued to arrest multiple convicted criminals in the United States illegally.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Abrego Garcia's lawyers ask judge to fine Trump administration for contempt
Lawyers for Kilmar Abrego Garcia have asked a federal judge in Maryland to impose fines against the Trump administration for contempt, arguing that it flagrantly ignored court ordersfor several weeks to return him to the U.S. from El Salvador. Abrego Garcia's attorneys said the administration claimed to be powerless to retrieve him, even while it secretly built a human smuggling case against him. The U.S. brought Abrego Garcia to a federal court in Nashville, Tennessee last week to face those charges. 'The Government's defiance has not been subtle,' the attorneys said in a filing late Wednesday. 'It has been vocal and sustained and flagrant.' The attorneys also are asking U.S. District Court Judge Paula Xinis to compel the release of documents the federal government withheld by claiming they contain protected state secrets. Or as an alternative, the lawyers suggested a special master to investigate the government's 'willful noncompliance' of court orders. 'What the Government improperly seeks to hide must be exposed for all to see,' Abrego Garcia's attorneys wrote. Their request came a day after the Trump administration said it will ask Xinis to dismiss the case, with U.S. attorneys describing recent accusations by Abrego Garcia's attorneys as baseless, desperate and disappointing. 'But the proof is in the pudding — Defendants have returned Abrego Garcia to the United States just as they were ordered to do,' they wrote. Legal experts said last month that the Abrego Garcia case may be headed for contempt. And the request by his attorneys adds to the ongoing friction between the White House and the courts during President Donald Trump's second term. Courts can hold parties to civil litigation or criminal cases in contempt for disobeying their orders. The penalty can take the form of fines or other civil punishments, or even prosecution and jail time, if pursued criminally. But contempt processes are slow and deliberative, and, when the government's involved, there's usually a resolution before penalties kick in. The U.S. mistakenly deported Abrego Garcia to an El Salvador prison in March. The expulsion violated a U.S. immigration judge's order in 2019 that shielded him from deportation to his native country because he likely faced gang persecution there. Abrego Garcia's American wife sued, prompting Xinis to order his return on April 4. The Supreme Court ruled April 10 that the administration must work to bring him back. Arguments ensued over the next several weeks about whether the Trump administration was following those orders or not. Trump also said publicly that he could return Abrego Garcia to the U.S. with a call to El Salvador President Nayib Bukele. Xinis ordered U.S. attorneys to submit documents and testimony to show what the government had done to follow her orders. The Trump administration claimed that much of that information is protected under the state secrets privilege. The judge has not ruled on that matter.
