Spending Review: Rachel Reeves confirms plan for new Liverpool to Manchester rail line
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has confirmed the government's ambition to build a new, faster rail link between Liverpool and Manchester.
Ms Reeves made her much-anticipated Spending Review announcement in the House of Commons today as she detailed how £600BN worth of cash will be spent by the government over the coming years.
And there was a big focus on transport spending in the north of England, with a fund of £1.6 billion confirmed for local transport projects in the Liverpool City Region - including a new bus fleet and a new 'Glider-style' rapid transit network.
READ MORE: Live updates as armed police called to street and air ambulance lands
READ MORE: Man found dead on train tracks
But there was big news for inter-city rail travel in the north west as well, as the Chancellor confirmed the government will soon set out its plans for Northern Powerhouse Rail - aimed at reducing travel times and increasing capacity on the network between the two major cities and other parts of the north.
This is a move that Liverpool City Region Mayor Steve Rotheram and his Greater Manchester counterpart Andy Burnham have long been campaigning for and last month the two regional leaders travelled to London to make the case for the new link.
They have been backed in that campaign by the Liverpool Echo and the Manchester Evening News, who joined forces to call for the cash needed to make this project happen.
However, while the previous government pledged to provide around £12 billion for the project - and the mayors believe more than that will be needed - at this stage it is not known how much money the government will put towards the project.
In her speech today, Ms Reeves didn't go into the numbers, but having outlined a further £3.5 billion investment in the Transpennine route upgrade, she added: "My ambition, and the ambition of the people of the north is greater still. In the coming weeks I will set out this government's plan to take forward our ambition for Northern Powerhouse Rail."
We will have to wait for more details of exactly what this rail plan will look like and how much cash the government will commit to it, but the Chancellor has signalled her intentions today.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trade bill could trigger 'race to the bottom' in health standards, health groups warn
OTTAWA — Anti-smoking groups are warning the Carney government that its legislation to eliminate interprovincial trade barriers could undermine health standards unless it's amended to add new safeguards. The legislation, which the governing Liberals intend to push quickly through the House of Commons next week, looks to do two things — break down interprovincial barriers to trade and labour mobility and speed up approvals for major industrial projects, such as mines, ports and pipelines. The bill would allow provincial standards to displace federal ones to make it easier to sell Canadian-made goods within the country. But Rob Cunningham, senior policy analyst at the Canadian Cancer Society, said the current wording could lead to unintended consequences since provincial rules are sometimes weaker. He warns that, for example, it could prompt the return of products banned by federal regulation, such as those containing asbestos. "There's a federal measure banning asbestos in products, but provinces allow up to a certain per cent of asbestos in products," he said. "So that would mean that despite asbestos being banned in products for some years now, you could have asbestos return to products. That's not good." He also suggested the legislation could give tobacco companies space to bring back menthol or flavoured cigarettes, something that "shouldn't be happening." Cunningham said the bill should be changed to exempt federal health and environment standards and noted multilateral trade agreements typically contain such clauses. 'We are worried the tobacco (and) vape industry could take advantage of a less strict provincial standard to erode a stronger federal regulation that is protecting the health of Canadians across the country,' said Manuel Arango, vice-president of policy and advocacy at the Heart and Stroke Foundation. Ottawa could still create an exception for health through regulations after the bill is passed. It has not yet indicated it will do so. Cynthia Callard, head of Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada, said she worries about the bill being rushed through Parliament since the devil "will likely be in the details in the regulations." "If these are not well constructed, there is a decided risk of health protection becoming collateral damage of a push for greater economic activity," she said. "Provincial and federal governments share jurisdiction for (health and environmental) issues, which is why it is important that there is a legal shield against a race to the bottom when it comes to protective regulations. I do not see this in the bill." The Bloc Québécois, NDP and Green Party are accusing Prime Minister Mark Carney's government of trying to ram the bill through Parliament too quickly without sufficient study. Carney promised to eliminate federal policies that act as a barrier to interprovincial trade by Canada Day. The Liberal government has not yet responded to requests for comment. On Friday, Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dominic LeBlanc laid out the economic case for the trade aspects of the bill during debate in the House of Commons. He said the bill will remove "useless costs" and "regulatory confusion" that "hobble Canadians' ability to trade, connect and work wherever opportunity calls across our country." 'If a good is produced in compliance with provincial standards, it can move throughout the entire country without again having to go up against federal standards,' he said. He pointed to various levels of energy efficiency requirements that can stop products from being sold across provincial lines. He said an Ontario-made product that meets the province's "stringent energy efficiency requirements" could still be blocked from being sold in Quebec or Manitoba if it also does not meet federal standards. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 13, 2025. Kyle Duggan, The Canadian Press Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
The ‘experts' you've never heard of inspiring Rachel Reeves's disastrous economic policy
A little like the Chagos Islands giveaway and, more recently, the apparent Gibraltar sell out, it's almost impossible to work out the motivations behind each and every idiotic decision this Labour Government takes. There's a palpable sense of incredulity spreading across Britain as the Prime Minister and Chancellor continue to insist that everything is going swimmingly despite most key markers showing precisely the opposite is true. Take the economy. In Wednesday's Spending Review, Rachel Reeves boasted that she had 'wasted no time' removing the barriers to growth. Less than 24 hours later, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) revealed that UK GDP had shrunk by 0.3 per cent in April. Labour continues to splurge taxpayers' hard-earned cash despite the national debt sitting at around 96 per cent of GDP, the budget deficit more doubling in the past seven years, and public spending being on a par with the profligate Labour government of the 1970s, which almost bankrupted the country. Back then, taxes as a share of GDP were around 33 per cent. Forecasts suggest that, by 2027, they could reach 37.7 per cent. Unemployment is at its highest level in four years, UK payrolls have lost 276,000 employees since the autumn Budget, and a millionaire is reportedly leaving the UK every 45 minutes under Labour. Still, no one in the Cabinet appears able to rule out further tax rises, with Paul Johnson, the outgoing chief of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) concluding that 'council tax bills look set to rise at their fastest rate over any parliament since 2001-05.' Who is advising Reeves on tax policy, and her relentless assault on our wallets? Readers may not have heard of Arun Advani and Andy Summers, but these little known academics may have been the inspiration for Labour's seemingly never-ending tax grab. They run the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation (CenTax), which some credit for Labour's farm tax. Advani, who is associate professor in the economics department at the University of Warwick, called for inheritance tax 'loopholes' on farms to be scrapped in two reports for the Institute for Fiscal Studies, as well as writing a further report for CenTax making the same arguments for changes to both Agricultural Property Relief (APR) and Business Property Relief (BPR) last October. After Advani boasted at the Labour Party Conference that he was 'optimistic' because the Labour government is 'genuinely listening' to his ideas, Reeves announced in the Budget that the availability of 100 per cent relief for agricultural and business property would be capped at £1 million. So far, so predictable, you may argue. What's the harm in tapping up Left-wing think tanks for radical tax ideas? Do Conservative governments not rely on the research of free market institutes? Well, some have alleged the Treasury relied solely on CenTax's projection that the changes would raise £520 million, without doing its own calculations. As it conceded in response to a Freedom of Information request: 'H M Treasury does not hold a disaggregated cost projection for the revenue raised from the measure announced at Autumn Budget 2024 to restrict these reliefs. This is a combined policy across the reliefs, rather than separate policies for each relief.' Even more problematically, the £520 million figure has been challenged. The OBR itself said it was uncertain how much would be raised as a result of behavioural responses, whilst CBI Economics calculates that the new tax on both family firms and farms will actually cost the Treasury £1.9 billion over the next five years. Advani claimed that only around 500 farms would be affected by the tax. As the Adam Smith Institute points out, however, 'the government's much-quoted '500' a year is really 15,000 a generation.' The true number of farms could be more than 40,000. Separate research, commissioned by Ashbridge Partners, found that one in 10 farmers surveyed said they will face an IHT bill of more than £1 million due to the inheritance tax hike, with 31 per cent expecting to pay more than £500,000. Why didn't Labour listen? Treasury minister James Murray, who referenced back in 2022 how many Zoom meetings he'd held with Dr Summers, even hosted CenTax's official launch in Parliament last November when he declared his desire 'to make sure that collaboration between CenTax, Treasury and HMRC continues for many years into the future.' Advani and Summers also influenced Labour's pledge to scrap non dom status with Treasury ministers again seeming to unquestioningly swallow their claim that it would raise £3.2 billion, a figure repeatedly cited by the Government. The trouble is, that number was also based on some misguided premises, perhaps including Advani and Summers' quite ludicrous prediction that out of 70,000 non-doms, only 77 would leave. As other economists later pointed out, the projection did not take into account the impact of abolishing non-dom inheritance tax protections. Even the OBR assumed that the changes would likely lead to a loss of 25 per cent of non-doms with trusts, which could cost the UK more than £12 billion during the course of the parliament. Still the Government swallowed the £3.2 billion figure hook line and sinker despite some now estimating that 10 per cent of non-doms may have already left the UK. A report by the CEBR predicts the ongoing exodus could reach 40 per cent – costing the Treasury a self-defeating £7.1 billion over this parliament. This combined with the £1.9 billion revenue lost as a result of the farm and family firm tax could mean the Government is down £9 billion thanks to listening to these nitwits. CenTax also wrongly predicted that increasing the tax rate on carried interest to 45 per cent would raise additional revenue of £0.8 billion per year. Labour settled on 32 per cent – but a January 2025 estimate by the OBR suggests that only £100 million will be raised and since then Reeves has watered it down. Labour claim to be a 'party of business'. So why are they seemingly listening to two economists who are laying the intellectual groundwork for an expansion in taxation that could come to look like Corbynism on steroids. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
Rachel Reeves is leaving Britain defenceless
Last week, the Prime Minister said that we 'need to see the biggest shift in mindset in my lifetime: to put security and defence front and centre – to make it the fundamental organising principle of government'. The unfolding crisis in the Middle East underscores the need to do so. Now, more than ever, our national security must be the Government's overriding priority, trampling on any other competing demands for government money and ministers' time. But it isn't. This noble organising principle seems not to apply where it matters most: the Government's economic strategy. In her spending review this week, the Chancellor gave us her own definition of security: 'securonomics'. This ugly word, reeking of socialist greyness and uniformity, means – to quote Rachel Reeves – 'government must step up to provide security for working people and resilience for our national economy.' She is right about the need for economic resilience. For years, it has been clear that, in a turbulent world, the scale and structure of debt, combined with anaemic growth, makes our economy highly vulnerable to global shocks. Yet instead of rebuilding a fiscal buffer, the Chancellor has left us with a fiscal wafer so thin it could crack at the merest tap. Instead of bringing debt down, it will be higher at the end of the Parliament than today – and the cost of servicing it is already more than we spend on defence. And instead of supporting growth – critical to everything – the Government has suffocated it with higher taxes. Next, how has the Chancellor helped deliver 'security for working people'? For most working people, job security – the ability to find and keep a steady job – is key. Yet job insecurity is rising. By raising National Insurance on employers – a £25bn jobs tax – Rachel Reeves has provoked the biggest fall in employment in five years. Unemployment is ticking up. The broader definition of 'security' obviously encompasses our nation's defence. Although defence spending is set to rise to 2.5 per cent GDP during this Parliament, this is clearly not enough. At the upcoming Nato summit, the UK will be pressed to raise it to at least 3.5 per cent. But in Wednesday's spending review, what was the Chancellor's 'choice'? To give the NHS, not defence, a bigger slice of government largesse. 90 per cent of the total increase in spending from 2025-6 will go to health. The NHS will see a record cash investment: real-terms, day to day spending is set to increase by 3 per cent per year, costing an extra £29 billion. A government that sees defence as the organising principle of government would not have made that choice. It would have made the case that we need to move from a state that prioritises welfare to one that prepares for warfare. And as part of a strategy to put debt on a gradual downward path, it would have made tough decisions on spending overall – starting with a reform of incapacity and disability benefits, which now cost more than the defence budget. Instead, as her speech took us from spending more on affordable homes, to car production to training to buses in Rochdale, the Chancellor disorganised her Downing Street neighbour's organising principle, showing it the respect Tracey Emin had for her bed. There is only one conclusion one can draw from all this. Last week, when the Prime Minister said we need to make security and defence 'the organising principle of government', he left off four words: 'for this week only'. Lord Bridges of Headley is a former government minister; he was Chairman of the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee between January 2022 and January 2025 Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
