Cooper still in last-minute talks with Treasury over spending review
Rachel Reeves is expected to announce above-inflation increases in the policing budget when she sets out her spending plans for the next three years on Wednesday.
But Home Secretary Yvette Cooper is yet to agree a final settlement with the Chancellor, with reports suggesting greater police spending will mean a squeeze on other areas of her department's budget.
Downing Street is now understood to be involved in the talks, with Ms Cooper the last minister still to reach a deal with the Treasury.
Rachel Reeves is expected to announce funding increases for health, defence and education, but tougher budgets for other departments (Peter Byrne/PA)
The spending review is expected to see funding increases for the NHS, schools and defence along with a number of infrastructure projects as the Chancellor 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, technology minister Sir Chris Bryant insisted that the spending review would not see a return to austerity, telling Times Radio that period was 'over'.
But he acknowledged that some parts of the budget would be 'much more stretched' and 'difficult'.
Sir Sadiq Khan's office is concerned that the spending review could contain no new projects or funding for London (Lucy North/PA)
One of those areas could be London, where Sir Sadiq Khan's office is concerned the spending review will include no new projects or funding for the capital.
The mayor had been seeking extensions to the Docklands Light Railway and Bakerloo Underground line, along with powers to introduce a tourist levy and a substantial increase in funding for the Metropolitan Police, but his office now expects none of these will be approved.
A source close to the Mayor said 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.'
For too long, communities across the country have been locked out of the investment they deserve.
That's why on Wednesday, we announced funding worth £15.6bn, helping to drive cities, towns, and communities forward. pic.twitter.com/SJ41aeSZJz
— HM Treasury (@hmtreasury) June 6, 2025
Last week, Ms Reeves acknowledged she had been forced to turn down requests for funding for projects she would have wanted to back, in a sign of the behind-the-scenes wrangling over her spending review.
The Department of Health is set to be the biggest winner, with the NHS expected to receive a boost of up to £30 billion at the expense of other public services.
Meanwhile, day-to-day funding for schools is expected to increase by £4.5 billion by 2028-9 compared with the 2025-6 core budget, which was published in the spring statement.
Elsewhere, 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.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ITV News
30 minutes ago
- ITV News
Nato chief to call on UK to spend 3.5% of GDP on defence
Life comes at you fast in Downing Street. It's only a week since the Prime Minister was dodging questions about when he would increase defence spending to 3% of GDP. Today the Nato Secretary General is in town to tell Keir Starmer that actually Britain ought to spend 3.5% by 2035. Its expected the PM will agree with the target. And we are talking big sums here. That extra 0.5% is worth north of £17bn. Put a different way our defence budget of around £60bn would have to rise to more like £100bn to meet the 3.5% which is the new Nato target. Thats an NHS scale amount of money. And it inevitably means spending cuts elsewhere or tax rises or both. There are two reasons for this. The first is Vladimir Putin, the second is Donald Trump. Putin has shown he is ready and willing to attack his European neighbours. Trump has suggested he is less willing to come to the rescue. Today it is Ukraine, tomorrow it could be Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania. That's where we come in. Those three Baltic states are all Nato members. If they are attacked we would be obliged to defend them, we would be at war with Russia; that's the Nato deal. Mark Rutte wants Nato to be big enough, tough enough and determined enough to deter Putin, to make it not worth his while to test the alliance. But Nato's 2035 target is, of course, ten years away. Many defence analysts think that it will only take Putin a couple of years after ending the Ukraine war to reconstitute his armed forces. So here's the key question; are we in a Cold War moment when the threat in Europe will not materialise, or a pre-1939 moment when it will?
Daily Mirror
31 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
'Reform and Tories want to ban burkhas but don't give a damn about Muslim women'
At the end of last week, Zia Yusuf, the millionaire 'patriotic Muslim' chairman of Reform, left the party with this goodbye email: '11 months ago I became chairman of Reform… I no longer believe working to get a Reform government elected is a good use of my time, and hereby resign the office'. This came after Sarah Pochin, a new Reform MP, urged the PM to ban the burka, 'in the name of public safety'. Yusuf thought it was a 'dumb' intervention and flounced off. Now he is back in the fold, being flattered and coddled by Nigel Farage and his motley lot. Nige actually looked grey with shock when he first commented on the unexpected resignation. Now the perma smile is back. Now Kemi Badenoch, a hungry political scavenger, has picked up the burka theme. She wants bosses to be able to ban burkas. Lots of votes in that, she calculates, as her party sinks. Neither Reform nor the Tories give a damn about us Muslim females. They just want to incite hatred. Anti-Muslim bones are thrown and are grabbed by ISLAMOPHOBES. The burka is used, as it was by the ghastly Boris Johnson, as a code to incite fear of an enemy within. Muslims make up only 6.7% of the UK's population, but you would not know that from the hysteria they/we generate in the media and politics. Farage previously accused Muslims of wanting to take over the UK and, last May, told the nation that Muslims do 'not subscribe to British values'. As defined by him. So Lord Chancellor Shabana Mahmood, Tory peer Sayeeda Warsi, Olympian Sir Mo Farah, polymath Adil Ray, actor Riz Ahmed, TV chef Nadiya Hussain, broadcaster Mishal Husain, etc, are aliens living among us. Me too. Dangerous rubbish. And they know it. Yusuf, the born again Reform chairman, manifestly does. That said, the burka is not a brown and white issue. Modernist Muslims like me have, for many years, expressed dismay and opposition to all forms of veiling. I even wrote a book, Refusing the Veil, some years ago, outlining its history, exposing fake claims about what the holy texts say and revealing the long history of resistance to it. There are only five fundamental obligations in Islam. Veiling is not on the list. Aisha bint Talha, a granddaughter of Abu Bakr, head of Sunni Muslims after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, refused to cover herself: 'Since God has put upon me the stamp of beauty, it is my wish that the public should view that beauty… No one can force me to do anything.' Egyptian, Iranian, Iraqi and Afghan women, through the centuries, have done what she did. And keep on challenging the practice today. I also am forthright about grooming circles of men of Pakistani heritage and their white victims. As a feminist Muslim, I feel I must continue to do that. However, as an anti-racist leftie, I must take on vicious politicians who are going after people of my faith. The genuine anxieties and problems experienced by citizens across the Western world are being exploited by the far right to whip up xenophobia against migrants and Muslims. Reform tries to project itself as inclusive – Yusuf was a useful mascot – but this does not bear scrutiny. Farage, like Trump, has savaged equality policies because they 'disadvantage' white people. A year ago, a Channel 4 investigation recorded Reform canvassers making explicitly Islamophobic and racist comments. The Great Leader has posed with far-right activists who show off their swastikas. With more voters flocking to his party and unending media sycophancy, Farage seems unstoppable. Yusuf is back on the mission to make him PM. He may succeed. Then Reform's messiah will dump on the common people. Those who pick on minorities should not be trusted. Ever. Muslims will have to battle against these xenophobes as well as misogyny within our families and communities. And for British democracy, hard times are coming. I read excerpts of Sarah Vine's new book, How Not to Be a Political Wife with, first, amusement, then annoyance. The stridently anti-EU Daily Mail columnist and ex-Mrs Michael Gove was once in the top Tory girl gang led by Samantha Cameron. The great Brexit swindle broke them up. Vine was devastated – no more holidays together, no cheery dinners, no children's sleepovers. Her marriage, she claims, crashed too. I feel her pain. Sort of. But there is no concern that the country fell apart and will never recover. Her lot live in a bubble of privilege and vanity. That's why the voters kicked them out. No lessons have been learnt.
The Guardian
36 minutes ago
- The Guardian
London AI firm says Getty copyright case poses ‘overt threat' to industry
Getty's case against Stability AI for copyright and trademark infringement relating to its vast photography archives reached the high court in London on Monday. Stability allows users to generate images using text prompts, and its directors include James Cameron, the Oscar-winning film director of Avatar and Titanic. But Getty called the people who were training the AI system 'a bunch of tech geeks' and claimed they were indifferent to the problems their innovation might create. Stability countered by alleging that Getty was using 'fanciful' legal routes and spending approximately £10m to fight a technology it feared was 'an existential threat' to its business. They added: 'The problem is when AI companies such as Stability want to use those works without payment.' In submissions to the court on Monday Getty claimed Stability had trained its image generation model on databases that contained child sexual abuse material. Stability is fighting the overall Getty claim and its lawyer said the allegations relating to child sexual abuse material were 'repugnant'. A spokesperson for Stability AI said it was committed to preventing misuse of its technology, 'particularly in the creation and dissemination of harmful content, including CSAM [child sexual abuse material]'. It said it had robust safeguards 'to enhance our safety standards to protect against bad actors'. Sign up to TechScape A weekly dive in to how technology is shaping our lives after newsletter promotion The case comes amid a wider campaign from artists, writers and musicians, including Elton John and Dua Lipa, to protect their copyright from alleged theft by generative AI companies, which then use it to allow their customers to create new pictures, music or text. The UK parliament is locked in a similar dispute after the government proposed that copyright holders would have to opt out of their material being used to train algorithms and produce AI-generated content, otherwise it would be free to use by tech companies. The trial, which is scheduled to run for several weeks, will focus in part on the use of images by celebrated photographers, including photos of the former Liverpool football coach Jürgen Klopp taken by the award-winning British sports photographer Andrew Livesey; a picture of the Chicago Cubs baseball team by Gregory Shamus, an American sports photographer; a photo of the actor and musician Donald Glover by Alberto Rodriguez; and photos of the actor Eric Dane and film director Christopher Nolan by Andreas Rentz. Seventy-eight thousand pages of evidence have been disclosed in the case and AI experts are being called to give evidence from the University of California, Berkeley and the University of Freiberg in Germany.
