The winners and losers in Labour's first spending review
When Rachel Reeves publishes the government's spending review on Wednesday, the stories the Treasury will want to tell are the energy, transport and other infrastructure projects that will get a share of the big boost in capital funding – £113bn.
They will argue that cash, freed up by the change to the fiscal rules in the budget, could only have happened under Labour and was opposed by the Tories and Reform.
But the capital spending cannot stop expected cuts in day-to-day spending, meaning extremely tight settlements for departments, with savings expected from policing budgets, local government, civil service cuts, foreign aid, education and culture.
Treasury sources said they would still spend £190bn more over the five-year parliament than the Conservatives' spending plans – meaning more than £300bn will be distributed among departments.
Real-terms spending will grow at an average of 1.2% a year over the three years that the spending review period covers, a significant drop from the first two years when it will be 2.5%.
Even that figure does not tell the full story because of the disproportionate boost being given to defence and the NHS – and has led the Institute for Fiscal Studies to warn that the spending commitments will require 'chunky tax rises' in the autumn, when coupled with other expected priorities such as restoring the winter fuel allowance to more pensioners and action on child poverty such as ending the two-child benefit limit.
Here are some of the key offers from the spending review – and the rows over cuts.
The biggest row of the spending review has been between Reeves and the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, over policing, which one source describes as being a 'huge headache'.
Cooper has brought out the big guns to make her case, first with a letter from six police chiefs who warned that without more funding the government would not meet its manifesto promises on crime. Sir Mark Rowley, the head of the Metropolitan police, and other senior police officers have also written to the prime minister to warn him that investment was need to prevent some crimes being routinely ignored. It is understood the policing budget will not face real terms cuts but the level of spending is still under discussion.
The Home Office is under strain as a major spending department that is key to some of the most ambitious manifesto pledges – including halving knife crime, police recruitment, reducing violence against women and girls as well as dealing with monitoring offenders who will be released earlier due to sentencing changes.
The other major spending review row is over deep dissatisfaction from Angela Rayner – the deputy prime minister and housing secretary – with the level of funding for social homes in the spending review, making her one of the last remaining holdouts in negotiations with the Treasury over departmental spending settlements.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has been battling for more funding for the affordable homes programme as well as trying to preserve cash for local councils, homelessness and regional growth initiatives.
The Treasury had previously put £2bn into affordable housing, described as a 'down payment' on further funding to be announced at the spending review, which Reeves said would mark a generational shift in the building of council homes.
However, the next phase of funding has caused a major rift with Rayner – and more so because capital spending on infrastructure such as housing is meant to be a priority.
The environment secretary, Steve Reed, is said to have been holding out for a big capital injection to fund flood defences. The autumn budget said the government was facing significant funding pressures on flood defences and farm schemes of almost £600m in 2024-25, and that those schemes would have to be reviewed for their affordability.
Sources at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) confirmed a post-Brexit farming fund would be cut in the review. Labour promised a fund of £5bn over two years – from 2024 to 2026 – at the budget, which is being honoured, but in the years after that it will be slashed for all but a few farms.
The energy secretary, Ed Miliband, had a long fight to keep cash for a major programme of insulation, which was a key part of the government's net zero strategy. However, there are reports suggesting other schemes could be scaled back to protect the insulation programme.
At the October budget, Reeves announced £3.4bn over three years for household energy efficiency schemes, heat decarbonisation and fuel poverty schemes. The government responded to concerns expressed at the time calling the sum the 'bare minimum' and promising a spending uplift at the review.
Miliband's department is expected to get significant capital investment in energy infrastructure including nuclear – with the government poised to give the go ahead to the Sizewell C nuclear plant.
The chancellor has already announced £15bn in transport spending across the north of England, funds which she said fulfil promises made by the Conservatives to the country but which the party had no way to pay for them in its own plan.
Wes Streeting's department is set to be one of the big winners of the spending review and it will lay the groundwork for the NHS 10-year plan, which will be published imminently after the spending review. The department will get one of the biggest boosts to funding as others face real-terms cuts.
The funding for the plan prioritises three key areas, moving care from hospitals to communities, increasing the use of technology, and prioritising prevention.
No 10 and Streeting hope that the 10-year plan will contain major commitments and a positive story that the government will finally be able to tell properly on improvements to the health service – though any good news could be scuppered by the ballot for strike action by resident doctors.
Still, Streeting's department was one of the last to settle formally with the Treasury due to negotiations over drug prices, though departmental sources downplayed any specific row.
Any child in England whose parents receive universal credit will be able to claim free school meals from September 2026, the government has said. Parents on the credit will be eligible regardless of their income. The government says the change will make 500,000 more pupils eligible.
A Department for Education (DfE) source said it was the best measure outside welfare changes to address child poverty and that the education secretary, Bridget Phillipson, had consistently fought to protect school food programmes through each round of spending negotiations.
But schools budgets will be squeezed. Teachers will get a 4% pay rise next year, with additional funding of £615m. But schools will still have to fund about a quarter of the rise themselves – a total of £400m from their current budgets.
Phillipson has tasked the DfE with finding savings in schools budgets, such as energy bills.
Savings will also come as the government is removing public funding for level 7 apprenticeships, which has drawn criticism from skills experts.
The justice secretary, Shabana Mahmood, was one of the first to reach her settlement to allow her to announce a £4.7bn plan to build three new prisons starting this year, part of a 'record expansion' as the government attempts to get to grips with the prison crisis.
The early announcement was essential because it came alongside an announcement that the government would put a limit on how long hundreds of repeat offenders can be recalled to prison amid Whitehall predictions that jails will be full again in November.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Treasury Secretary Suddenly Backtracks on Major Tariff Deadline
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent indicated that Donald Trump is again intending to move the goalposts for his global tariff policy. The United States is fast approaching the end of the president's 90-day pause on his sweeping global tariffs on July 9, but while testifying before the House Ways and Means Committee on Wednesday, Bessent said that 'Liberation Day' Part 2 may not come to pass so soon. 'I would say, as I have repeatedly said, that there are 18 important trading partners. We are working toward deals on those. And it is highly likely that those countries that are negoti—or trading blocs, in the case of the EU—who are negotiating in good faith, we will roll the date forward to continue good-faith negotiations,' Bessent said. 'If someone is not negotiating, then we will not,' he added. The Trump administration has not even vaguely approached its initial promise to crack 90 deals in 90 days, only announcing two unfinished deals, with the U.K. and China. Crucially, Trump's paltry set of terms with China isn't even a deal. China referred to it as merely a 'framework,' while Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said it was a 'handshake for a framework' that both Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping need to approve. Trump seems intent on running the country's economic policy in 90-day increments, prolonging economic uncertainty that has roiled the markets and sent prices rising. But the president's failure should hardly come as a surprise, as the stated purpose of his tariffs—not to ensure economic prosperity but to bring U.S. trading partners to their knees—defies all logic and reason. With only two half-deals made, and a suddenly unclear horizon, it's not clear how TACO Trump will ever reach the goal of 200 trade deals he'd claimed to have made in April. Especially considering that there aren't even that many countries.


New York Post
28 minutes ago
- New York Post
Three cheers for the US-China trade war ceasefire
Yay! High-level US-China talks in London this week reached a trade-war ceasefire, offering some stability for nervous markets. Days of talks, following on President Donald Trump's call with China's Xi Jinping last Thursday, settled on a framework that leaves a 55% US tariff on Chinese goods and a 10% Chinese levy on American imports. Plus, Beijing will ease restrictions on rare-earth exports while Washington will back off on its developing ban on Chinese students attending American universities. Plenty of issues remain: China's key role in world fentanyl production, for one thing; its long history of intellectual-property theft, currency manipulation and so on. Not to mention the outright espionage that so many of those students are dragged into. And of course in the longer term the United States needs to be less dependent on China for rare earths, pharmaceutical precursors and many other critical needs. The two sides are supposed to reach a comprehensive deal by Aug. 10, but at least the summer should be calm. The chaos of on-again, off-again tariffs had led to turbulence in US markets and had mom-and-pop shops bracing for 'the end'; now they can plan at least a couple of months ahead, with solid reason to hope the worst is over. US businesses can adapt to 55% tariffs on Chinese goods, as long as they've got some certainty that the rate will remain stable. Kudos to Treasury and Commerce Secretaries Scott Bessent and Howard Lutnick, the top US negotiators in London, for mastering 'the art of the framework'; let's hope Trump and Xi can close a final deal.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Rachel Reeves may have just killed Nato
There will be a moment, some time in the next few years when the US will genuinely consider leaving Nato. And if it does, we should not be surprised. It wasn't as if they didn't warn the rest of us. About the only thing Donald Trump and Barack Obama ever agreed on was that Europe must make a much bigger financial contribution to Nato. In 2014 at the Cardiff Summit, the Treasury furiously resisted the demands. All sorts of tricks were pulled and definitions were stretched to get the UK to 2 per cent of GDP. The Americans, in their polite way, asked nicely. They've been asking ever since. Because as they command all Allied forces in Nato they knew the truth about the state of everyone's forces. While public scrutiny was kept at bay using secrecy and 'operational reasons', SACEUR – Supreme Allied Commander Europe, the military boss of Nato and always an American – grew increasingly concerned as Russia got more and more aggressive. And still European capitals, including London, carried on cutting. Not until 2019 and Boris Johnson did the Ministry of Defence turn the corner with real money and real reform. Previous Conservative and Labour governments had used the Red Arrows and Trooping the Colour to pretend that all was well. But Ukraine found us out. Nato and the international community needed to act: and as we examined our inventory ministers could see just how weak we had become. I remember when we debated gifting the AS90 155mm long range artillery to Ukraine I was informed that while we had 73 guns on the books only 19 worked! Or when I tried to increase the number of tanks to be upgraded to Challenger 3s I was told it was impossible because so many of our tanks had already been stripped of parts to keep others running. You might say that I should have known all that detail on day one. But you'd be surprised how well the services can hide bad news when they want to. Last week we witnessed Labour's first defence review for more than 20 years. It was heralded by re‑announcing many Conservative procurements. As a review it was weak: clearly budget-led not threat led. The big decisions had been made beforehand, and without 3 per cent by 2030 the review would clearly be hollow at birth, as it was. It was also an insult to the men and women of the Armed Forces and the equivalent of sticking two fingers up to the White House. Today's spending review confirmed what we all feared. Rather than making tough decisions on public spending priorities, Rachel Reeves chose to use Treasury tricks to deceive us all. The Government has folded in intelligence spending, Ukraine spending and even Foreign Office money to the notional 'defence' figure. The result is that core defence spending will not even be 2.5 per cent as promised: not even close. There was no path to 3 per cent either. It was just a con all along. If John Healey spent as much time battling the Treasury as he did repeating my government's plans or deceiving the public with spin then he might have had some success. But it is clear he is Labour first and UK defence second. How dare this Government avoid the solemn duty to defend our shores and properly equip the men and women of the armed forces. Labour was the government that sent our troops to war in Snatch Land Rovers and they are destined to repeat that betrayal. Next week Donald Trump will arrive in Holland for the Nato summit. He will bring with him a message that we must all spend 3.5 per cent of GDP on actual defence, not counting spies or diplomats. The Donald will not be bought off with Treasury tricks. I was in Washington last week and some very senior people in the White House and the Pentagon genuinely believe Trump may leave Nato in two years. They are serious. So we need to either demonstrate we are pulling our weight or we need to compensate for the 70 per cent loss to Nato capability if the US leaves. Based on Rachel Reeves's efforts we will do neither. History may point to this as the moment when the UK surrendered its place in Nato and triggered its demise. And all the while, Putin and Xi will be licking their lips. Waiting for their moment. For that little bit of Estonia or Finland. The best Donald Trump can do next week is say that Nato is a club with a subscription. No money should mean no entry. Ben Wallace served as Secretary of State for Defence from 2019 to 2023. He is a former British Army officer 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.