logo
Spending Review: Massive cheques from the chancellor for some - but what do totals hide?

Spending Review: Massive cheques from the chancellor for some - but what do totals hide?

Yahoo14 hours ago

The next few days are vital – "one of the last moments to weave it all together – to look politically credible to the people Labour has lost", one senior figure reckons.
There have been huge fights inside government about the looming Spending Review.
As I write, the home secretary and deputy prime minister are both still in dispute with the mighty Treasury over the amount of cash they'll have to spend.
But the Treasury's already trying to convince the public the review is about significant investment.
On Wednesday Rachel Reeves boasted of funnelling billions more taxpayers' cash to big transport projects outside the wealthier south east of England, having tweaked the Treasury rules to do it.
Now, with five days still to go, I've been passed some of the information that'll be in the pages of Wednesday's review.
It's one crucial chart that will be in the huge bundle of documents heading to the printing presses on Tuesday night that shows what's called TDEL – the Total Departmental Expenditure Limit.
In other words, the total that government spends, including the day-to-day costs of running public services and long-term spending on big projects.
But it doesn't include costs that government can't set in advance – like pensions and benefits, or debt interest.
The chart spans 2010 to 2030, so takes in the coalition years, where you can see the total sliding down, then the Conservative years when spending starts rising after the Brexit referendum, then leaps up during Covid.
And then, when Labour took charge, the red line going up steeply at first, then more slowly towards the end of this parliamentary term.
The total real terms spending by 2029-30? More than £650bn – roughly £100bn more than when Labour took office.
The pale blue line is what would have happened to spending if the Conservatives had managed to hang on to power last year.
The government now is allergic to accusations that any cuts they make will be a return to austerity. And this chart shows that overall spending is going up considerably, compared to those lean years.
The political argument around spending will rage but the chancellor did - to use the ghastly technical term – set out the "spending envelope" in her autumn Budget, indicating rises were coming.
You can bet they'll want to use every chance they have to say they are spending significantly more than the Tories planned to under Rishi Sunak.
The government's political opponents on the other hand, may look at that red line as it climbs steeply upwards and say: "See, public spending is ballooning out of control".
This chart does illustrate very significant rises in public spending. But be careful. What this chart doesn't give us is any idea of how those massive totals break down. Massive chunks will go to favoured departments, suggestions of an extra £30bn for the NHS today.
And a very significant part of that steep rise will be allocated to long-term projects, not running public services, some of which are struggling.
The overall total may be enormous, but a couple of parts of government greedily suck in billions - others will still feel the pain.
A case in point – as I write on Saturday morning, the Home Office is still arguing over its settlement, believing there isn't enough cash to provide the number of police the government has promised, while the front pages are full of stories about the NHS receiving another bumper deal.
So observe this big health warning. The chart gives us a sense of the political argument the chancellor will make.
But it doesn't tell the full story or give the crucial totals, department by department, decision by decision.
It's worth saying it's incredibly unusual to see any of this before the day itself, hinting perhaps at jitters in No 11 about how the review will be received.
Until we hear the chancellor's speech, and then see all of the documents in full on Wednesday, the story of the Spending Review won't be clear.
There will be reams of statistics, produced by government, and the official number crunchers, the OBR, and then days of analysis by think tanks and experts in the aftermath.
But bear in mind these three core facts. Rachel Reeves will put a huge amount of cash, tens and tens of billions, towards long term projects. Short-term spending money will be tight, with no spare cash for sweeteners. And the government is not popular, so there's huge pressure to tell a convincing story to try to change that, not least because of what went wrong the last time.
"We can't ever do it like this again." After Labour's first Budget, government insiders concluded next time, it had to be different.
A source recalls: "It was a very brutal exercise - it was literally just making the sums add up, there was no collective approach to what the priorities were."
Alongside a lot of extra cash for the NHS, there was a big tax rise for business that came out of the blue. No one wants a repeat of that experience.
The "next time" is now – and a Labour source warns the review might be as "painful as hell" .
So the task for a government struggling in the polls is to make this moment more than just a gruesome arithmetic problem, instead, to use the power of the state's cheque book to make, and go on to win an argument.
Stick a fiver on Rachel Reeves referring back to that first Budget as "fixing the foundations" of the economy and public services, this week then being the moment to start, "rebuilding Britain".
Sources suggest she has three aspects in mind: security for the country (which will explain all those billions for defence), the health of the nation - that does what it says on the tin, and "investing", all that cash for long-term projects.
Next week's decisions will be followed soon after by the government's industrial strategy which will promise support for business, possibly including cash to help with sky-high energy costs.
And it comes after several big staging posts – the immigration white paper, trade deals, the defence review.
In government circles there's hope of denting some of the criticisms that they have been slow to get moving in office, that, frankly, Sir Keir Starmer arrived in government without having worked out what he really wanted to do.
One Whitehall insider tells me, "Now the buses are all arriving at once – maybe the idea of this lacklustre government that didn't have a plan will be blown away by July?"
Another Labour source suggests the threat from Nigel Farage has actually forced the government to get moving, visibly, and decisively: "Reform gives us the impetus to actually shake this stuff down."
That's the rosy view of how the chancellor might be able to play a difficult hand. It might not be reality. It is profoundly uncomfortable for a Labour government to make cuts.
There is already a whiff of rebellion in the air over ministers' welfare plans. Expanding free school meals for kids in England seems designed to placate some of those critics in advance, but there could be more to make them mutinous.
Don't forget Reeves has several different audiences – not just the public and her party, but the financial bigwigs too.
This time last year all Labour's schmoozing was paying off, and she enjoyed good reviews in the City.
One year on, that mood has shifted, in part because of the autumn budget.
According to one city source, it "damaged her. People saw it as an about turn on her promises. Raising National Insurance, however they want to present it, went against the spirit of the manifesto… confidence in her in the City is diminished and diminishing", not least because there is chatter about more tax hikes in the autumn budget.
Sign up for the Off Air with Laura K newsletter to get Laura Kuenssberg's expert insight and insider stories every week, emailed directly to you.
You probably don't need me to remind you that the level of taxes collected by government are historically sky high.
So too, at the other end, is the amount of government debt. A former Treasury minister told me this morning, "debt is the central issue of our time, nationally and globally".
"There is a real risk our debt becomes unsustainable this Parliament, unless we make tough choices about what the state does. We can't keep on muddling through."
Add in the twists, tariffs and tantrums of the man in the White House, that make the global economic situation uncertain and the picture's not pretty.
But politics hinges on finding advantage in adversity. Polling suggests much of the country reckons Labour inherited a bad hand and has played it badly.
This week, the chancellor has a chance to change the game. No 11 is determined to prove that she has made decisions only a Labour chancellor would make.
And Reeves is gambling that her decisions to shovel massive amounts of money into long term spending helps the economy turn, and translates into political support well before the next general election.
A senior Labour source said, Wednesday will be "the moment, this government clicks into gear, or it won't". There's no guarantee.
'It's going to be ugly': Westminster braces for Spending Review
The Conservative Party faces problems - is its leader one of them?
The country where the left (not the far right) made hardline immigration laws
BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Travel ban may shut door for Afghan family to bring niece to US for a better life
Travel ban may shut door for Afghan family to bring niece to US for a better life

Washington Post

timean hour ago

  • Washington Post

Travel ban may shut door for Afghan family to bring niece to US for a better life

IRMO, S.C. — Mohammad Sharafoddin, his wife and young son walked at times for 36 hours in a row over mountain passes as they left Afghanistan as refugees to end up less than a decade later talking about their journey on a plush love seat in the family's three-bedroom suburban American home. He and his wife dreamed of bringing her niece to the U.S. to share in that bounty. Maybe she could study to become a doctor and then decide her own path. But that door slams shut on Monday as America put in place a travel ban for people from Afghanistan and a dozen other countries. 'It's kind of shock for us when we hear about Afghanistan, especially right now for ladies who are affected more than others with the new government,' Mohammad Sharafoddin said. 'We didn't think about this travel ban.' President Donald Trump signed the ban Wednesday. It is similar to one in place during his first administration but covers more countries. Along with Afghanistan, travel to the U.S. is banned from Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Trump said visitors who overstay visas, like the man charged in an attack that injured dozens of demonstrators in Boulder, Colorado, earlier this month, are a danger to the country. The suspect in the attack is from Egypt, which isn't included in the ban. The countries chosen for the ban have deficient screening of their citizens, often refuse to take them back and have a high percentage of people who stay in the U.S. after their visas expire, Trump said. The ban makes exceptions for people from Afghanistan on Special Immigrant Visas who generally worked most closely with the U.S. government during the two-decade war there. Afghanistan was also one of the largest sources of resettled refugees, with about 14,000 arrivals in a 12-month period through September 2024. Trump suspended refugee resettlement on his first day in office. It is a path Sharafoddin took with his wife and son out of Afghanistan walking on those mountain roads in the dark then through Pakistan, Iran and into Turkey. He worked in a factory for years in Turkey, listening to YouTube videos on headphones to learn English before he was resettled in Irmo, South Carolina, a suburb of Columbia. His son is now 11, and he and his wife had a daughter in the U.S. who is now 3. There is a job at a jewelry maker that allows him to afford a two-story, three-bedroom house. Food was laid out on two tables Saturday for a celebration of the Muslim Eid al-Adha holiday . Sharafoddin's wife, Nuriya, said she is learning English and driving — two things she couldn't do in Afghanistan under Taliban rule. 'I'm very happy to be here now, because my son is very good at school and my daughter also. I think after 18 years they are going to work, and my daughter is going to be able to go to college,' she said. It is a life she wanted for her niece too. The couple show videos from their cellphones of her drawing and painting. When the Taliban returned to power in 2021, their niece could no longer study. So they started to plan to get her to the U.S. at least to further her education. Nuriya Sharafoddin doesn't know if her niece has heard the news from America yet. She hasn't had the heart to call and tell her. 'I'm not ready to call her. This is not good news. This is very sad news because she is worried and wants to come,' Nuriya Sharafoddin said. While the couple spoke, Jim Ray came by. He has helped a number of refugee families settle in Columbia and helped the Sharafoddins navigate questions in their second language. Ray said Afghans in Columbia know the return of the Taliban changed how the U.S. deals with their native country. But while the ban allows spouses, children or parents to travel to America, other family members aren't included. Many Afghans know their extended families are starving or suffering, and suddenly a path to help is closed, Ray said. 'We'll have to wait and see how the travel ban and the specifics of it actually play out,' Ray said. 'This kind of thing that they're experiencing where family cannot be reunited is actually where it hurts the most.' The Taliban itself criticized Trump for the ban, with leader Hibatullah Akhundzada saying the U.S. was now the oppressor of the world. 'Citizens from 12 countries are barred from entering their land — and Afghans are not allowed either,' he said on a recording shared on social media. 'Why? Because they claim the Afghan government has no control over its people and that people are leaving the country. So, oppressor! Is this what you call friendship with humanity?'

Two popular high street chains in Sutton apply for premise licenses
Two popular high street chains in Sutton apply for premise licenses

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Two popular high street chains in Sutton apply for premise licenses

Two high street chains have applied for new premises licences. Lidl Great Britain Limited has submitted an application to sell alcohol at its Sutton branch from 7am to 11pm, seven days a week. The supermarket, located at Units 78, 80, and 82 High Street, is seeking permission for off-premises sales. Anyone wishing to view the full application can do so online via the licensing register or in person at the London Borough of Sutton Civic Offices. The deadline for public representations is June 19. In a separate application, PLK Chicken UK Ltd has applied for a premises licence for the Popeyes branch at 137-143 High Street, Sutton. The fast-food chain is seeking permission to provide late-night refreshments both on and off the premises from 11pm until 3am daily. Members of the public can view the application online or in person at the Civic Offices by appointment. Representations must be submitted in writing by June 17, detailing the grounds for objection. These must relate to one or more of the four licensing objectives: the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance, and the protection of children from harm. All representations will be included in the papers presented to the Licensing Panel and will therefore become part of the public record. False statements in connection with a licensing application are also liable to an unlimited fine. More information on both applications is available via the Sutton Council website. Want to find out all the latest planning applications, alcohol licensing applications and planned road closures near you? Then search the Public Notice Portal. The Public Notice Portal is owned and operated by the News Media Association, the voice of UK national, regional, and local newspapers in all their print and digital forms. NMA members include nearly 900 local and regional news titles which reach 40 million people across the length and breadth of the country each month. Many of these publications have served their communities for centuries and remain the most reliable source of verified news and information. Created by local news publishers and supported by the Google News Initiative, the portal carries statutory public notices published in local newspapers and is the fastest and most effective way of finding out what is happening in YOUR neighbourhood.

Penrith MP indicates he will vote against assisted dying bill
Penrith MP indicates he will vote against assisted dying bill

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Penrith MP indicates he will vote against assisted dying bill

A Cumbrian MP has indicated that he is likely to vote against the assisted dying bill - despite previously voting for it. The Labour MP for Penrith and Solway Markus Campbell-Savours told the BBC that he still is "a supporter of assisted dying" but said the proposed bill crosses a 'red line' in protecting the vulnerable. Cumbria's MPs were split on the issue when it was first voted on in parliament with Josh MacAlister (Whitehaven and Workington, Labour) and Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and the Solway, Labour) voting for the bill and Julie Minns (Carlisle, Labour), Michelle Scrogham (Barrow, Labour) and Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale, Liberal Democrat) all voting against the bill. Opponents to changing the law have argued some people could feel pressured to have an assisted death against their will and have called for more focus on improving and ensuring equal access to palliative care. Campaigners who are terminally ill or have watched loved ones die in pain have called the existing legislation 'unbelievably cruel' and pointed out that animals suffering severely can be legally euthanised. Since the last vote, Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP behind the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, has brought forward amendments for a so-called 'judge plus' system, after hearing concerns during expert evidence sessions last month. She has now proposed a judge-led Voluntary Assisted Dying Commission that she said would give a greater role to experts, including psychiatrists and social workers, in overseeing applications. The commission would be led by a High Court judge or a senior former judge and receive all applications and reports from two independent doctors, which would then be referred to a three-member panel chaired by what has been described as a senior legal figure. READ MORE: RSPCA issues warning after cat dies of antifreeze poisoning in Cumbria | News and Star "I want to see safeguards that will ensure that assisted dying is not overextended to include those in situations where there are alternative ways to improve the quality of their lives," said Mr Campbell-Savours to the BBC. "I would also be very concerned if legislation produced a situation where people who considered themselves a burden on their families and friends felt pressured to end their life."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store