
Reeves Pledges Boost to Health, Housing, and Defence in Multi-Year Spending Review
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has delivered her first multi-year
In her
However, critics
At the core of the government's plans to 'renew Britain' is a £29 billion annual increase in NHS funding.
Other pledges include £39 billion for social and affordable housing over the next decade and confirmation of a previously announced £30 billion for nuclear projects, including £14.2 billion for the
Some departments—like Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs and Culture, Media, and Sport—are facing day-to-day spending cuts. The Department of Energy Security and Net Zero is set to see its budget grow by a much smaller average of just 0.5 percent per year from 2025/26 to 2028/29.
Related Stories
6/4/2025
6/5/2025
Public transport projects in England's city regions will see an investment of £15 billion, while defence spending will rise to 2.6 percent by April 2027, including for the intelligence agencies.
The government has also committed £2 billion to support the growth of 'home-grown AI' and an additional £4.5 billion annually to the education budget.
To address severe
Business leaders welcomed the £25.6 billion increase in resources to the British Business Bank, which Reeves said will back 'Britain's entrepreneurs and wealth creators.'
The British Retail Consortium applauded the announcement of an extra £2 billion for policing, amid growing concerns over shoplifting.
However, the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) criticised the review for lacking focus on smaller enterprises.
The FSB Policy Chair Tina McKenzie said that while 'small firms were not the focus today,' the government must prioritise growth reforms in the sector over the summer and through to the autumn.
Reeves also announced plans to end the use of asylum hotels during this Parliament, which is projected to save £1 billion per year. An additional £280 million annually by the end of the review period will be directed towards preventing illegal immigrant crossings.
Across the review period—lasting until 2028–29 for day-to-day spending and 2029–30 for capital investment—total departmental budgets would grow 2.3 percent a year in real terms.
A Summer of Speculation
Reeves said the budget boosts were 'only possible' because of her decision to raise taxes in the previous Autumn Budget, reaffirming that her fiscal rules are 'non-negotiable.'
She criticised the previous government for creating a '£22 billion black hole in the public finances' and vowed to bring stability to the economy.
However, Reeves currently has very limited
Given this tight buffer and the increases in spending announced since the Spring Statement, economists
The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) argued that Reeves's plans failed to address the so-called 'fiscal black hole.'
'So we should brace ourselves for tax increases in the autumn, and a summer of speculation over exactly where they will fall,' the IEA said.
The Conservatives described the chancellor's plan as 'not worth the paper that it is written on.'
Shadow chancellor Mel Stride said Reeves has 'completely lost control,' suggesting that tax hikes in the autumn are inevitable.
'This is the spend now, tax later review, because [the chancellor] knows she will need to come back here in the autumn with yet more taxes and a cruel summer of speculation awaits,' he told the Commons.
Economic Uncertainty
Economists cautioned that the government may not generate the necessary tax revenue to fund its commitments under Reeves's fiscal rules without broader reforms and cuts to bureaucracy.
Maxwell Marlow, director of public affairs at the Adam Smith Institute, said: 'As the state continues to balloon in size, the government must remain vigilant in ensuring taxpayer money is spent wisely. Without reform, many of its plans risk becoming unsustainable.'
Targeted investments—particularly in transport and housing outside London and the southeast—could boost Labour's political standing in areas where the party faces growing pressure from Reform UK. However, economists are uncertain whether the increased investment will generate enough growth and revenue to justify the outlay.
'The focus must now shift to delivery and avoiding the all-too-common project over-runs,' said IFS Director Paul Johnson.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
House Republicans spar with Democratic governors in tense immigration hearing
House Republicans clashed with three Democratic governors over immigration policies during a testy hearing Thursday that served as a broader forum for one of President Donald Trump's landmark issues amid the breakout of anti-deportation protests in California and around the country. Over the course of an hourslong hearing convened by the House Oversight Committee on so-called sanctuary state policies, Republican lawmakers repeatedly accused those three blue-state leaders — Govs. Kathy Hochul of New York, JB Pritzker of Illinois and Tim Walz of Minnesota — of bearing responsibility for the deaths and abuse of people who were killed or assaulted by immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally. The three governors defended themselves, frequently and forcefully pointing out that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility — not a state one — and at times suggested that Republicans on the panel were creating a political spectacle to impress Trump. House Democrats led the criticism of Trump directly, with some calling him a 'gangster' or a 'dictator' and others lambasting his decision to deploy National Guard troops and U.S. Marines to Los Angeles to maintain control of protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids. Conservatives have said sanctuary laws refer to policies that prevent local authorities from being compelled to participate in federal immigration enforcement. Trump has in his second term signed multiple executive orders that target such cities and states, including one that withholds federal funds. The hearing got off to a hostile start, with Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., the panel's chair, kicking off his opening statement by declaring that the three governors — as well as other Democratic leaders — were running 'sanctuary cities and states' that were 'siding with illegal aliens.' Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., the ranking Democrat on the committee, hit back in his own opening statement by comparing several recent ICE actions to moves conducted by the 'Gestapo' — referring to the secret police in Nazi Germany. During a particularly tense exchange, Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., asked Hochul, 'Do you go along with the strategy from the Biden administration, which massively expanded immigration protocols that overwhelmed your city and overwhelmed your state?' 'We call for secure borders,' Hochul interjected, prompting Donalds to retort, 'I never remember you calling for secure borders at all, governor.' 'You're putting a federal problem on our laps. And know what? It gets old after a while,' Hochul responded. 'I wish you would just do your job.' At one point, Walz attempted to take a more conciliatory tone, while also pointing out that immigration enforcement remains a federal duty. 'No one here wants to hear these horrific stories. But we have a job to do on limited resources,' Walz said. He added that it was a mistake for Republicans to say "that not doing ICE's job means we're not cooperating." 'Nothing we do precludes them from doing their job,' Walz said. 'We have the responsibility of the American public to work together, and I think threatening arrests on elected officials … doesn't help any of us.' (Trump has suggested he would support the arrest of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat.) The hearing also featured numerous distinctly political moments. Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., who is considering a run for governor of New York, is not a member of the committee, but Comer allowed several lawmakers to join in on the questioning. Stefanik used the opportunity to attack Hochul, repeatedly bringing up instances of undocumented immigrants committing crimes in the state, saying that they were emblematic of 'Kathy Hochul's New York.' 'No amount of words is going to clean up your failed record, and these horrific crimes committed in the sanctuary state that you created,' Stefanik said. In what at times resembled potential campaign messaging, Stefanik said, 'We deserve a governor who stands up for law-abiding New Yorkers, who doesn't put illegals first, but actually puts New Yorkers first." Hochul hit back by saying that Stefanik was simply 'going after the viral moment.' It was just one of several examples where a questioner on Thursday's panel was running for higher office. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill., is running for U.S. Senate, for example, while Donalds, as well as Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., are both running for governor in their states next year. In addition, Walz and Pritzker are viewed as potential 2028 Democratic presidential candidates. Both in recent weeks have taken steps to limit government-funded health care coverage for undocumented immigrants, a potential move to the right on the broader issue of immigration. The latter half of the hearing featured numerous Democrats seeking to introduce reports for the record documenting the forcible removal of Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., from a news conference in Los Angeles after he tried to question Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. Rep. Maxwell Frost, D-Fla., repeatedly pressed Comer and other Republicans to commit to subpoenaing Noem. 'Just shut up,' Comer replied, after moments of back-and-forth yelling. Rep. Majorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., said "Democrats can't follow the rules, can't follow the law" as Frost continued to demand Comer's attention. The hearing took a brief recess after that. Later in the hearing, Democrats played the clip of the incident. 'I want to say to all of you, all of you on both sides, but particularly those on the Republican side, that I cannot believe the disrespect that was shown to a United States senator, who was thrown down, handcuffed and not allowed to ask a question of our secretary of homeland security," Pritzker said. Earlier, the hearing veered off track numerous times, with Republicans using the stage to pepper the governors with questions on topics that GOP lawmakers are currently investigating or that are popular with their conservative base. At one point, Comer asked Walz if he'd ever asked former Vice President Kamala Harris about former President Joe Biden's 'cognitive decline.' Walz, who ran on the Democratic Party's 2024 ticket with Harris, replied he had not, triggering Comer to press harder. At another point, Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas., asked Pritzker about whether he thought that 'biological men should be able to use women's restrooms.' Prtizker eventually replied, 'so you're admitting that this is just a political circus.' The three Democratic governors also slammed Trump for calling up the National Guard to respond to the protests in California, expressing concern that the move could be replicated in other states. Pritzker said that, "When the president of the United States is calling up your National Guard over the top of local law enforcement, saying that they don't need it, that they have things under control, it tends to have an inflaming effect on what's going on on the ground." Hochul, for her part, said Trump's actions 'absolutely undermine the sovereignty of individual states.' 'Undermining confidence in local law enforcement — you're basically saying that there's not a belief that the highly trained individuals of our municipal police departments ... can handle their jobs,' she said. 'This is an overreach of epic proportions." This article was originally published on

Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Crime will be the next immigration. Politicians will be punished for it
It's hard to shake off the sense that Britain is creeping towards lawlessness. Low-level crime is on its way to becoming legalised, whether officially – in the case of cannabis – or not – as with shoplifting. Public faith in the police is collapsing as many serious crimes like burglary and assault routinely fail to be solved, and sometimes even go uninvestigated, while 'speech crimes' trigger the full wrath of the law. Too many neighbourhoods are becoming hotbeds of anti-social behaviour, with begging prolific and buildings defaced by graffiti. True, Britain is cash-strapped. But it's the fusion of chronic underinvestment with liberal idealism which is so toxic. Disorder is being normalised, criminals treated as victims, the rule of law eroded. Though politicians remain convinced that crime is a second-order issue, it could eventually prove the Labour Government's undoing. My own local area in west London is disintegrating. It started with a clutch of beggars congregating outside the Tesco after Covid. Now they are joined by dishevelled women selling 'washing powder' and bare-footed addicts. For the most part, they are a nuisance rather than dangerous. Like many women in the city, when I walk the streets, I get the surreal feeling of being neither safe nor unsafe. With the crime rate in my area surging by a third since 2019, and several of my neighbours recently burgled, that may soon change. When I expressed my concerns to police and crime commissioners this week, they echoed Mark Rowley's complaint about a lack of funds. Some say they find Rachel Reeves's claim that she is hiking police spending by 2.3 per cent each year exasperating. A view prevails in Westminster that crime is a non-issue. Its proponents point to statistics that suggest it is at its lowest level on record. They think that technology is rendering crime a relic of the past, with their favourite example, carjacking, now largely a fool's errand thanks to security device innovation. They think that any ongoing problems pertain to a tiny number of chronic offenders. Meanwhile, Left-leaning criminologists insist that conservatives' fears that 'soft' policing could drive up crime are prejudiced. Crackdowns are said to be 'counterproductive', alienating 'disproportionately-targeted' minority groups. Such framing overlooks the risk that unrecorded crime is quietly climbing, as law-breaking becomes such a regular occurrence that some victims don't bother to report it. Other kinds are probably not being picked up properly by polling. Even more worrying is the Leftist view that, if there is a specific issue with chronic offenders, it's the consequence of too much law and order rather than too little. Keir Starmer's prison guru, James Timpson, thinks Britain is 'addicted' to sentencing. Sadiq Khan has backed 'partial' cannabis decriminalisation, amid claims that policing the drug harms more than the substance itself. The way in which the Left tries to romanticise these criminals is if anything becoming more strident – we are told that in the wake of austerity and Covid, certain law-breakers are, deep down, troubled souls. Shoplifters and fare dodgers who are allegedly 'struggling with the cost of living' are the latest group to which any 'compassionate' society should turn a blind eye, the Left insist. This myth threatens to shake the foundations of our society by undermining the sacred principle that we are all equal under the law. There is only so far we can fall down this rehabilitation rabbit hole before triggering a crime surge. Labour is adamant that the Michael Howard school of tough sentencing has failed. It has opted to release offenders early and ignore our rotting prison estate. This is a terrible mistake. Even if prison isn't working in the sense that it isn't preventing ex-convicts from reoffending, policymakers should not use this as an excuse to avoid punishing those who break our laws. The answer to our failure to rehabilitate is not to allow criminals to escape punishment. In the most important sense, prison almost always 'works' by preventing somebody who is locked up from stealing or assaulting other people. True, rehabilitation can sometimes work wonders. I have spoken with ex offenders who have been transformed by such programmes. One woman, Sonia, told me of how the support of one charity helped her evade the 'revolving door back to prison'. But resource-intensive, bespoke rehabilitation is tricky to scale. In austere times, the temptation to roll out rehab on the cheap could prove overwhelming, and will end in failure. As veteran probation expert Mark Leech told me: 'There are prisoners that have done the courses so many times they could deliver them better than the tutors who deliver them.' Chasing a utopian ideal, with no idea how to make it work, let alone on a tight budget, is flirting with disaster. Efforts by some criminologists to discredit the policing approach known as 'broken windows' could also end badly. This concept, which clamps down on low-level crime such as graffiti and drug-taking on the basis that tolerating 'minor' disorder leads to a culture that promotes much more serious crime, helped flatten a vicious crime wave in 1990s New York. It has been trashed in recent years, amid complaints it is racist and based on 'bogus' evidence. I disagree. Broken windows could once again be a vital weapon against certain serious crimes, such as sexual offences. Police officers on the front line certainly seem to think so: as Matthew Barber, PCC for Thames Valley, says: 'You won't find many hardened criminals who didn't start doing things at a young age before getting steadily out of control. Fix those basics and you'll prevent an awful lot more serious crime down the road.' Though Labour politicians may be in denial, a slow-burning crisis is unfolding. There is a widespread sense of malaise, that law is breaking down. In Red Wall towns, Labour's 'levelling up' projects are being undermined by anti-social behaviour. In the cities, alarm at gang violence, as well as muggings and burglary, may yet nudge professionals to the Right. Labour's inability to tackle crime could cost it dear. 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
2 hours 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 Wilfred Frost 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:Chancellor running out of levers to pullGrowth stats make for unpleasant readingYour spending review questions answered '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.