Cooper still in last-minute talks with Treasury over spending review
The Home Office remains locked in negotiations with the Treasury over its budget with time running out before the 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.
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'.
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
7 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on Labour's tough choices: they are costing the government dearly
The Labour government's abrupt U-turn on winter fuel payments – restoring the benefit to more than three-quarters of pensioners – reveals less a change of heart than a sobering realisation in Westminster: after years of austerity, the public no longer gives politicians the benefit of the doubt. The irony is hard to miss. Labour set out to prove that 'grown-up' economics means difficult decisions – only to find that once trust is lost, voters won't accept vague promises without tangible results. It turns out many are sceptical that sacrifices will produce better results for society. That's why ministers are struggling to justify cuts to disability benefits as a way to 'fund' public services – or to convince the public that Britain can't afford to lift the two-child benefit cap even as ministers claim they will reduce child poverty. There may be more conspicuous retreats ahead for the government. Sir Keir Starmer and his chancellor, Rachel Reeves, had wanted a series of symbolic breaks with Labour's traditional base to prove that only by making tough choices could they deliver £113bn in new public investment. Instead, the last year has become a cautionary tale: ministers elected to repudiate Tory austerity are now seen to be replicating it – and voters have noticed, with Labour's poll numbers sliding as a result. In such a climate, appeals to fiscal rectitude don't receive gratitude but suspicion. The government's volte-face over pensioner benefits only reinforces the sense it was driven by a backlash, not conviction. This dynamic isn't new but it has radically reshaped Labour's own base – and should be a warning to the party for its future. Working-class voters once formed Labour's backbone; now many vote for no one at all. This isn't about lacking education or income. Throughout the postwar decades, working-class turnout matched that of the middle classes. As Geoffrey Evans and James Tilley of Oxford University wrote in their book The New Politics of Class, the drop came only when their political representation vanished. As parties converged and Labour abandoned its working-class roots, political choice disappeared. Labour's traditional base didn't stop voting because they couldn't – they stopped because there was nothing left to vote for. Brexit reshaped politics, but not as radically as many claim. Today's class politics has been built on culture wars and channelled through identity and belonging. The warning by the former Bank of England chief economist Andy Haldane that Nigel Farage is now seen by many as the closest thing Britain has to a 'tribune for the working class' should be taken seriously. Citing Reform UK's surge in the polls, he pointed to a 'moral rupture' between voters and mainstream politicians, accusing Labour of fuelling disillusionment through a weak growth strategy and unpopular decisions on benefits. While not declaring Reform the definitive working-class party, Mr Haldane stressed that what matters is perception – and right now, many working-class voters believe Mr Farage speaks for them more than anyone else. Labour's spending review this week looks like an attempt to reframe its offer around extra cash for frontline services such as health and education. That is welcome. Less so will be the real-terms cuts in unprotected departments that Ms Reeves's fiscal rules demand to account for such commitments. If this reset is not visible and felt by voters soon, the door swings open wider to Mr Farage and his hard-right politics.
The Guardian
21 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Reeves struggles to explain the genius of Labour's winter fuel payment U-turn
Mmmm. That went well, didn't it? One of the first things Labour did after winning the election was to cut the winter fuel allowance (WFA) for most pensioners. To show that they were strong. A signal to the bond markets that they would take the tough decisions to balance the Treasury books. And it was just one of those things if a handful of old people decided to die of hypothermia. They were dying in a good cause. Pour encourager les autres. Let no one take being warm for granted again. Time for some proper pensioner gratitude. After that, things started to unravel. MPs on all sides of the house – not least the Labour benches – began to ask whether this was the sort of policy a Labour government, any government come to think of it, ought to be introducing. Hell, the Tories had tried starving them with a cost of living crisis and now this? Rachel Reeves unconvincingly said the real aim was to make sure all those eligible for pension credit had claimed it but there would be no U-turns. Then came the U-turn. Two and a half weeks ago at prime minister's questions, Keir Starmer announced the reverse ferret. Something that everyone other than Kemi Badenoch heard clearly. Kemi isn't the quickest on the uptake. Now, on Monday morning – a couple of days before the spending review – came the details from the Treasury. Any pensioner with an income of under £35,000 would now be entitled to the WFA, starting this winter. Genius. It would be hard to create a bigger cock-up if you tried. Not just the denials of the U-turn followed by the inevitable U-turn. But the logistics. With the extra 100,000 people claiming pensioner credit, Labour has ended up with a bigger spending bill than if it had left the WFA as it was. Plus it has managed to dent its own economic credibility by not being able to explain how the £1.3bn extra cost will be paid for. Wait until the budget, we are told. Only just a few weeks ago, Reeves said she would live or die by balancing the books. The chancellor was out and about in north London trying to smooth things over on Monday lunchtime. When is a U-turn not a U-turn? When it's a Rachel U-turn. It was like this. She had originally made the spending cut to partially fill the black hole in the country's finances. Just one of those things. But then she had miraculously found that the economy was doing far better than expected so she was able to reverse her decision. She couldn't say how the country was doing better – she has yet to find anyone to back up this suggestion – but we should take her word for it. Any connection to the withdrawal of the WFA being unpopular was a coincidence. She was sorry but not sorry. Yeahbutnobutyeahbutno. Everywhere she went, lay the tell-tale sounds of burnt rubber. You could tell that Rachel wasn't having one of her best days. She looked confused. Embarrassed even. As if she couldn't quite believe some of the nonsense coming out of her mouth. A feeling confirmed by the fact she was nowhere to be seen when it was time for her to make a statement to the Commons. She had just checked her diary and had found there was a slurry of subsequent engagements. Nor was anyone else senior in the Treasury to be found to take her place. They too had found themselves unavoidably detained elsewhere. Appointments at the doctor. Unexpected open heart surgery. Anything. Any excuse will do. 'I've got a very important lunch. I can't cancel.' 'But the statement isn't until 4.15.' 'Ah, but it's a very long lunch. And then I have a coffee.' What goes around, comes around. In his time as head of the Resolution Foundation, Torsten Bell would have had a thing or two to say about the cuts to the WFA. None of them good. There was a Torsten once who didn't think killing pensioners was a good idea. But that Torsten was very much last year's Torsten. He has moved on since then. Wised up. But when he became a fresh-faced MP last year – Torsten looks about 12 – he was immediately promoted to the most junior role in the Treasury. One step up from the receptionist. So there was an air of inevitability when he was forced to take Rachel's place. Luckily, Torsten is hopelessly naive. Thinks there is an air of nobility in being made to look a halfwit. It's as if he was yet another ego straight out of Oxford who believes that he was born to rule. That the union was just a stepping stone to a life that will probably end up in the House of Lords. Monday was just a staging post. It's a brilliance that was almost entirely self-imagined. He managed to turn what was always going to be an embarrassment into a humiliation. All ersatz macho posture as he tried to pretend the U-turn was a clever piece of government time management. Hell, he even managed to make the shadow secretary of state for work and pensions, Helen Whately, look good. Something that never happens. She was prone to her own delusions – namely that it was the Tories that had forced the U-turn – but her main point was unarguable. Why no apology? Just say sorry. You've fucked things up, you're trying to fix it, let's move on. The story might then go away. But Torsten didn't apologise. Choosing instead to bluster for more than an hour. The kindest thing to do was to look away. Down in Port Talbot, Nigel Farage was also trying to take the credit for the U-turn. Though he was also trying to make it sound completely normal for someone to walk out of their job one day and walk back in the next. Zia Yusuf must be thrilled to be talked of as a temperamental teenager who had got cross with Daddy. Nige also observed that Yusuf had suffered loads of racist abuse. He forgot to mention that almost all of it had come from Reform UK supporters. Mostly, though, Farage was keen to reopen the steelworks that can't be opened to make a type of steel we don't use and to reopen the coalmines so that all those former miners who swore blind they wanted their kids to never go down the pits could tell their kids to do just that. The regeneration of Wales starts in the 1950s. Vote Reform. Back to the future.
Reuters
22 minutes ago
- Reuters
Activist hedge fund Parvus builds stake in Novo Nordisk, FT reports
June 9 (Reuters) - Activist hedge fund Parvus Asset Management is building a stake in Novo Nordisk ( opens new tab, after the company lost its first mover advantage in the lucrative weight-loss drug market, the Financial Times reported on Monday, citing people with knowledge of the details. The London-based fund, which has targeted budget airline Ryanair (RYA.I), opens new tab and Italian bank UniCredit ( opens new tab, wants to influence the appointment of Novo Nordisk's new CEO, the report said. Novo told Reuters in an email that it does not "have anything to add." Parvus did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In May, the company announced its CEO Lars Fruergaard Jorgensen would step down after shares plunged from a record-high in June last year as competition, particularly from U.S. rival Eli Lilly (LLY.N), opens new tab, makes inroads into Novo's market share, while its pipeline of new drugs has failed to impress investors. Novo also expects its Wegovy weight-loss drug sales in the United States to start recovering once a ban on compound copycats is enforced this month, Jorgensen said last month after the company cut its 2025 forecasts.
