Spending Review criticised by Tory police leaders
Three Conservative Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) in the south of England have criticised the chancellor's long-term spending plans.
Rachel Reeves announced on Wednesday that police funding would rise by 2.3% a year to fund 13,000 more neighbourhood officers.
But Thames Valley PCC Matthew Barber and Hampshire and Isle of Wight PCC Donna Jones said the increase was funded by an assumed increase in council tax, while Dorset PCC David Sidwick said policing was at risk without "significant investment".
Reeves told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme she did not "accept" the need for cuts to police jobs.
Reeves' comments were in response to Labour's London Mayor Sir Sadiq Khan saying the Spending Review would lead to cuts to frontline policing.
Police budgets are made up of funding from both central government and a portion of council tax called the police precept.
PCCs can raise this precept by £14 a year for a Band D council tax bill without having to have a referendum. This is in addition to a 5% general rise.
"When they talk about spending power, that's predicated on me increasing council tax by £14 every year for the next three years on local taxpayers," said Barber.
"The chancellor says no tax rise is needed to fund her spending plans [but] she's simply passing the buck from one place to another, and taxpayers end up picking up the bill."
Jones said the plan to increase neighbourhood policing by 13,000 officers was "now merely a pipe dream".
"What it is going to mean is that smaller police forces across the country will probably be forced to reduce their head count for police officers, and probably entirely get rid of police community support officers," she said.
Sidwick said Dorset residents "already pay over and above what other areas do for their police force" because rurality and seasonality were not considered in the funding formula.
"That is not right," he said.
"I understand there are tough decisions the government must make - we've had to make many in Dorset due to years of underfunding - but it is clear that serious and very real concerns from all corners of policing have once again not been heeded by those in power."
A Home Office spokesperson said: "We are committed to ensuring that police forces have the resources they need to keep our streets safe.
"Council tax levels are a local decision, and elected police and crime commissioners will consider the appropriate level for their local priorities.
"Further details for next year will be set out in the autumn as part of the annual police funding settlement."
You can follow BBC Berkshire on Facebook, X (Twitter), or Instagram.
Winners and losers: Who got what in the spending review?
Justice system starved of money, police leaders say
Hampshire PCC
Thames Valley PCC
Dorset PCC
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vox
3 hours ago
- Vox
A court ordered Trump's team to free an activist. They refused.
This story appeared in The Logoff, a daily newsletter that helps you stay informed about the Trump administration without letting political news take over your life. Subscribe here. Welcome to The Logoff: The Trump administration is defying a federal judge's order that it free a pro-Palestinian activist, attacking both the rule of law and the Constitution's guarantee of free speech. Catch me up? In March, the Trump administration arrested Mahmoud Khalil, a pro-Palestinian activist and former Columbia University student, and designated him for deportation over his participation in campus protests. Mahmoud was a legal permanent US resident, but the administration argued it has the right to revoke Khalil's green card on the grounds that his presence constitutes a threat to US foreign policy. Khalil sued to stop the deportation, and the two sides have been in court ever since. So what happened this week? On Wednesday, a federal judge ordered the administration to free Khalil. But today, the administration said it would not free him, arguing unconvincingly that it's still detaining Khalil for a different violation. (The judge's ruling to free Khalil explicitly anticipated this strategy and described it as legally unsound.) What's next? The administration says that it will appeal the order to a higher court — and keep Khalil detained in the meantime. What's the big picture? If Khalil had conducted all the same protest actions on behalf of a cause favored by the administration, he'd still be free. That means that, under Donald Trump, immigrants are facing consequences for expressing political opinions that the administration objects to — a clear violation of the First Amendment. And with that, it's time to log off… I'm in desperate need of a long walk with my dog and a podcast, so I'm excited about the new episode of Today, Explained. The episode is focused on Dropout, a streaming platform whose fans are so dedicated that some of them are actually asking to pay more for the service. (You can listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and elsewhere.) I hope everyone has a safe and fulfilling weekend, and I'll see you back here Monday.
Yahoo
5 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
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Corbyn and McDonnell to face no action after rally
MPs Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell will face no further action after being interviewed by police following a pro-Palestinian rally. McDonnell said the pair had been questioned by officers after taking part in the demonstration in central London in January. He told MPs: "It was alleged that we failed to follow police restrictions on the protest. This is untrue, and at all times we followed police instructions". Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn accused the Metropolitan Police of "picking on us two as members of Parliament". A rally involving several thousand people took place in Whitehall in January after police blocked plans to hold a march from Portland Place, near the headquarters of the BBC. Police had imposed a condition on the organisers of the rally under the Public Order Act that prevented them gathering outside the corporation's headquarters because of its close proximity to a synagogue and a risk there could be "serious disruption" as congregants attended services. A further condition required the rally to be confined to Whitehall. Speaking in the Commons on Friday, McDonnell said: "We can now report that the police have dropped the case against us, and there will be no charges". He added that in correspondence with their solicitor, the Met had "informed us that our case was referred to the Crown Prosecution Service because as MPs we were to be held to have, and I quote, a 'greater culpability'". "This is an unacceptable practice that flies in the face of the principle that we are all equal before the law," he added. "I wish to place on record my concern about this behaviour by the Metropolitan Police". Speaking after him, Corbyn said: "I saw this whole effort as being a means to try and silence the democratic rights of everyone in our society by picking on us two as members of Parliament". Former Labour leader Corbyn was re-elected as an independent MP for Islington North after losing the Labour whip in 2020. Hayes and Harlington MP McDonnell currently sits as an independent, after Labour suspended the whip from him for in July 2024 for voting against the government over child benefit rules. In a statement on social media, the pair also called for charges to be dropped against Christopher Nineham, 63, of Tower Hamlets, and Benjamin Jamal, 61, who are facing trial next month on public order charges following the protest. A Met spokesperson said: "No further action will be taken against nine people who were interviewed as part of an investigation into alleged breaches of Public Order Act conditions during a protest on Saturday 18 January. "The decision in two cases was taken following a review of the evidence by the Crown Prosecution Service, while the remaining seven cases were decided on by police officers. "Two men have been charged with breaching the same conditions as well as inciting others to do so. They will stand trial next month. A further two individuals remain under investigation." A spokesperson for the Crown Prosecution Service said: "Following a thorough review of the evidence provided by the Metropolitan Police Service, we have decided not to bring criminal charges against two men, aged 76 and 73. "We have concluded that the case did not meet the evidential test to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against the two men."
