Five key things Rachel Reeves announced in the Spending Review
Rachel Reeves has unveiled how the government will spend taxpayers' money between now and the next general election.
The Chancellor has revealed her Spending Review which sets out how much money each government department will get over a three-year period. Ms Reeves also gave some details of how an extra £113bn of funding will be spent on big infrastructure projects.
The NHS, housing and defence were the big winners with huge funding hikes for each, while transport budgets will also get a boost.
READ MORE: M60 traffic: Queues on THREE motorways after vehicle overturns
READ MORE: Race Across the World star Sam Gardiner's cause of death heard after devastating crash
Police forces will also get more 'spending power', the Chancellor confirmed after fears budget cuts could mean fewer officers.
Ms Reeves also committed to closing hotels that are currently housing asylum seekers by the end of the Parliament.
Here are the key things the Chancellor has announced in the Spending Review.
Ms Reeves had already announced more than £15bn for local transport projects - including £2.5bn for Greater Manchester - last week.
The money which will go towards Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham's Bee Network will pay for 1,000 electric buses, new tram stops in north Manchester, Bury and Oldham, new tram-trains in Rochdale and the long-awaited Metrolink extension to Stockport.
Unveiling the rest of her Spending Review today (June 11), Ms Reeves also revealed funding for two major rail projects in the North.
The Chancellor announced £3.5bn for the Transpennine Route Upgrade which is already electrifying existing rail lines between York, Leeds and Manchester.
Ms Reeves also gave a nod to the Manchester-Liverpool railway line following reports that money has been set aside for the scheme.
But rather than referring to it directly, she promised to set out plans to 'take forward' Northern Powerhouse Rail - a new high-speed line across the North first announced more than a decade ago by the then-Tory Chancellor George Osborne - in the coming weeks.
The NHS will get a 'record' cash investment with a 3 per cent increase every year, amounting to an extra £29bn per year in total.
Ms Reeves said the government was spending £10bn digitising services as part of the government's 10-year plan for the health service.
She said: "To support that plan, to back the doctors and nurses we rely on, and to make sure the NHS is there whenever we need it, I am proud to announce today that this Labour Government is making a record cash investment in our NHS, increasing real-terms, day-to-day spending by 3% per year for every year of this spending review.
"An extra £29 billion per year for the day-to-day running of the health service.
"That is what the British people voted for and that is what we will deliver. More appointments. More doctors. More scanners.
"The National Health Service, created by a Labour government, protected, by a Labour government, and renewed, by this Labour Government."
Police 'spending power' is set to rise by an average of 2.3 per cent per year in real-terms. It follows fraught negotiations over funding.
Greater Manchester Police's chief constable Stephen Watson was among those who called for a boost to police budgets nationally.
Ms Reeves said the extra cash for police forces will allow Labour to fulfil its manifesto pledge of introducing 13,000 extra officers.
The Chancellor also announced £7bn to fund 14,000 new prison places and up to £700m per year into reform of the Probation system.
In her speech, Ms Reeves confirmed £39bn of funding for affordable and social homes which the Treasury first announced last night.
The Chancellor told MPs this funding increase represents the 'biggest cash injection into social and affordable housing in 50 years'.
She said that this funding would directly support housebuilding - made easier by recent planning reforms - especially for social rent.
Ms Reeves confirmed that defence spending would rise to 2.6 per cent of GDP by April 2027 which will amount to an £11bn uplift.
There will also be a £600m increase for security and intelligence agencies which is accounted for in the defence spending boost.
The Chancellor said there would also be up to £280m more per year by end of spending review for a new border security command.
Alongside this, she promised that the government would tackle the asylum backlog and vowed to end the use of hotels to house asylum seekers by the end of this Parliament, saying that the move would save £1bn a year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
3 hours ago
- New York Post
News Corp extends CEO Robert Thomson's contract through 2030
News Corp will extend the contract of chief executive Robert Thomson through 2030, the media giant said Sunday. Thomson was appointed CEO of News Corp — whose properties include The Post, Dow Jones, the Wall Street Journal and book publisher HarperCollins — in 2013. His contract was extended in 2023 until 2027. He has delivered News Corp's four most profitable years from fiscal 2021 to 2024, with continued strong performance in fiscal 2025 despite a challenging media landscape, the company said. 3 News Corp CEO Robert Thomson had his contract extended through 2030. Bloomberg via Getty Images 'Robert has been instrumental in News Corp's growth and transformation, and his vision and leadership are extremely important as the company continues to navigate this era of rapid change,' News Corp Chair Lachlan Murdoch said in a statement. Thomson has been at the helm of the New York-based company through several major deals, such as the sale of its Australian cable-TV unit Foxtel to British-owned sports network DAZN for $2.19 billion in 2024. 3 New York-based News Corp is the parent company of The Post. Robert Miller 3 News Corp's properties include The Post, Dow Jones, the Wall Street Journal and book publisher HarperCollins. Bloomberg via Getty Images News Corp also signed landmark agreements with major technology platforms, including most recently with OpenAI, to license the company's intellectual property in exchange for meaningful compensation. 'Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch have adroitly sculpted a company that is passionate and principled and purposeful, and it is a profound privilege to serve as Chief Executive,' Thomson said in a statement. 'For journalists, for authors, for society, for those who strive and aspire, these are times of immense challenge and boundless opportunity. Our leadership team is acutely conscious of an unwavering responsibility to our shareholders, and we are grateful for the sterling efforts of all our colleagues as we pursue profitability and seek to realize our vast potential.'
Boston Globe
6 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Europe is finally ready to spend more on defense. The hard part is how.
Advertisement This is a 'global reset,' Lieutenant General Sean Clancy, the new chief of the European Union's military committee, said at a security conference in Brussels this month. But 'we haven't even defined what the transition looks like.' Money, though, is far from the only issue Europe confronts now that it has reluctantly accepted the reality that it must be able to protect itself without help from the United States. Formidable political, strategic, and regulatory hurdles remain. EU leaders must maintain public support for common military spending and joint weapons procurement, even as right-wing nationalist sentiments oppose giving the bloc more power. And the farther from the Russian border, the less urgent the threat feels. Poland, for instance, is already spending nearly 5 percent of its gross domestic product on defense while Spain dedicated just 1.3 percent last year. Advertisement The European Union and Britain must also figure out how to prepare for the new kind of war that Russian aggression presents. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Europe's military has been focused on deploying troops to hot spots like Afghanistan and Iraq. Now they must be able to defend their own territory. Intelligence officials warn that Russian forces could be ready to attack a NATO country in five years. Complicating the decision-making are rapid advancements in intelligence, surveillance, battlefield management, and cyber technologies. Warfare is undergoing a transformation that is akin to what occurred during World War I, when horse-drawn wagons, muskets, and swords were replaced by tanks, machine guns, and airplanes. Look at Ukraine's battlefields. They are dominated by new technologies and throwback strategies, millions of drones and muddy trenches. 'Today 80 percent of targets in Ukraine are destroyed by drones,' said Andrius Kubilius, European Commissioner for defense and space. 'Every two months, there is a need for radical innovation of the drones in operation.' In recognition, the British Defense Ministry announced this month a startling overhaul of its warfighting approach, moving away from the Cold War-era focus on heavy armor and mechanized infantry. Under the plan, 80 percent of combat capability will rely on remote-controlled, reusable ground vehicles and drones as well as missiles, shells, and self-destructing drones. The EU has also taken steps to revise its strategy. In March, the 27 member nations issued a blueprint for combat readiness by 2030. Last month, the EU created a 150 billion euro (about $173 billion) program allowing joint investments in security. (Twenty-three countries are members of both the EU and NATO.) Advertisement But higgledy-piggledy rules and practices still hamper efforts to rapidly turn Europe's fragmented defenses into a unified and efficient fighting force. Joint financing is more the exception than the rule. Red tape, lack of coordination, and slow decision-making across the continent are causing delays, supply shortages, waste, and duplication, according to political and industry leaders. Overall strategy and standards are set by NATO commanders, but military budgets, specifications, quality control, export licenses, purchasing, and planning are handled by individual nations. The result is that a German-made component going into a French-made plane needs a separate export certification that can delay delivery by months. And though 12 European countries use NH90 helicopters, there are 17 versions, said Camille Grand, a former senior NATO official who leads defense studies at the European Council on Foreign Relations. Europe is also looking to decrease its dependence on American weaponry. The share of military equipment supplied to the European members of NATO by the United States has grown to nearly two-thirds, from about half less than a decade ago, according to a report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Europe has put a priority on investment in its own defense industry and is looking to make its supply chains for key materials, like gunpowder, more resilient. 'There is an adjustment in terms of the business model for the European defense industry,' Grand said, as it shifts to standardized mass production. That, he said, will require more consolidation to create economies of scale and joint procurement. Industry leaders, meanwhile, complain that they cannot invest in expanded production and research without more direction from government officials. Advertisement 'The political machinery is slow,' said Jan Pie, secretary-general of ASD, a trade group that represents 4,000 companies across Europe. 'So it's difficult to scale up.' Environmental approvals needed before a new weapons factory may be built can take up to five years, Pie said. He said that despite the talk about the need for urgency, the defense industry was not given priority in times of shortages. Nammo, a Norwegian ammunitions manufacturer that supplies Ukraine, for instance, was unable to ramp up production in 2023 because a nearby TikTok data center had already bought up the region's surplus electricity. As economies slow across Europe, budget battles are expected to continue to soak up the spotlight. It's doubtful that some countries will ever reach the 5 percent target. Still, as far as funding goes, Europe has turned a corner, several European leaders and military experts said. 'There's a lot of discussion about numbers, percentages, financing,' Nadia Calviño, president of the European Investment Bank, the EU's lending arm, said in Brussels recently. 'But I want to be very clear: Europe is a rich continent, and we can mobilize the necessary financing.' This article originally appeared in
Time Magazine
9 hours ago
- Time Magazine
How U.S. Strikes May Have Helped the Iranian Regime
Governments are not nations, especially in the Islamic Republic of Iran, but governments wage the wars that can define a nation. Until 2:00 a.m. Iran Standard Time on Sunday, the conflict between America and Iran had remained on a low boil for a solid 45 years, flaring into actual military encounters only on the territory of others, notably Iraq. There, every sixth U.S. fatality perished by the efforts of Iran. President Donald Trump alluded to this history in announcing the U.S. air strikes on three nuclear facilities inside Iran—bringing the conflict to a regime that, even when it attacked the U.S., invariably arranged for someone else to do it. In Iraq, the U.S. was an army of occupation, and its soldiers obliged to patrol the roads. They did so in Humvees heavily armored against the roadside bombs insurgents planted along the route. Iran, which wanted U.S. troops off its doorstep, organized its own insurgents, and gave them a new kind of roadside bomb, a shaped charge that could send a slug of copper through any armor, including an M1 Abrams tank. The soldiers who survived often lost limbs. The U.S. Army history of the Iraq War takes note of the U.S. unit intercepting crates of the copper plates fitted atop the explosive: 'All were turned on the same lathe in Iran.' Israeli officials had been warning the Americans about those bombs. Their own troops had encountered them while occupying Lebanon, where the diabolically lethal innovations had been planted by Hezbollah, the militia Iran helped establish and subsequently armed. When the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, Tehran directed them to be used against an enemy it had been fighting, in one way or another, since 1979. Read More: Iran Delivers Furious Warning, Speaks of 'Unprecedented Level of Danger and Chaos' After 'Heinous' U.S. Strikes That was the year everyday Iranians rose up against the King (or Shah) who had been put in place a quarter century earlier by the U.S. and British, in a CIA-directed coup bringing down a democratically-elected government (one that had kicked a British oil company out of the country). A half century later, Iranian citizens could be relied upon to bring up the coup to American reporters doing in-person interviews on Tehran streets decorated with wartime propaganda. The entire side of a tall building in Tehran shows the American flag with the stars replaced by skulls and the stripes formed by descending bombs. The mural, which had faded over the decades, was redone with fresh paint a few months ago. The famous 'Death to America' slogan is still on the wall of the park-like compound that once held the U.S. Embassy. The place was officially dubbed 'the Den of Spies' when it was overrun by supporters of the regime that replaced the Shah—a revolutionary movement led by a charismatic Shi'ite cleric named Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. (TIME's Person of the Year in 1979 is not to be confused with his similarly named successor, 86-year-old Ali Khamenei, who finally has reportedly nominated his own candidates as successor.) The former embassy is now a museum and, as TripAdvisor makes clear, an effective one. When Iranians were coming over the gates, American diplomats and spies scrambled to feed secrets into paper shredders, reducing their secret documents to strips of paper maybe an eighth-of-an-inch wide. The zeal of the 1979 revolution is still visible on the tables of the Den of Spies, in the papers true believers re-assembled strand-by-strand. Over 50 U.S. diplomats remained in the embassy as hostages for 444 days. The humiliation the nascent Islamic Republic of Iran inflicted on the United States may have been on par with the humiliation the regime is experiencing now. The hitch, for both the U.S. and Israel, is that bringing the attack to Iran, as a country, risks stirring the nationalist response of a nation that goes back 2,500 years. Most Iranians loathe their government, and may have looked on with a certain interest on June 13, when the Israeli warplanes and drones descended, both from abroad and from a base Mossad set up near Tehran. (A joke making the rounds in Tehran had one of Iran's retaliatory strikes hitting the headquarters of Mossad, but it was empty: All the agents were inside Iran.) At the time its secret nuclear program was revealed in 2002, people still held out hope that they could alter their government at the ballot box. But the political reform movement failed, and the stiffening, increasingly unpopular regime understood that it could no longer count on its population. Instead, it placed its hopes for survival in thugs beating protesters in the streets, and acquiring a nuclear weapon. A large majority of Iranians have no love for the regime. In small towns and cities alike, they have been rising up against their oppressive government at irregular intervals, for decades. But any kind of bomb is terrifying, and after the first night of attacks, Israel's warplanes moved beyond military targets and assassinations. An oil refinery was bombed. The casualties of a strike on Tajrish Square, a bustling bazaar in Tehran's north, included a water main and a well-known graphic designer, who was waiting at a red light. The specter of Gaza now looms over every Israeli military operation. After Iran's retaliatory missiles claimed Israeli lives, Israel's defense minister threatened that 'Tehran will burn.' Inside Iran, opposing the government does not extend to supporting attacks by foreign militaries. A group of human rights, civil society, and political activists who, as they put it, 'have always been critical and opposed to the current wrong way of governing,' posted a statement on Telegram saying: 'At this critical juncture in our country's history, when we are confronted with the aggression and arrogance of the racist Israeli government, which has a long history of warmongering, genocide and breaking the fundamental principles of morality and international law, we firmly condemn this attack. We emphasize our serious opposition to any foreign interference. We consider it to be detrimental to the human rights and democracy-seeking efforts of Iranian civil society, and we stand united and steadfast in defending the territorial integrity, independence, national defense capability of our homeland, defending the lives and dignity of human beings, and peace in the region and the world.' Dread swelled in the neighborhoods around the Tehran atomic research reactor, with the distribution of iodide potassium pills to protect the thyroid against radiation in the air. Experts say the risk of radiation exposure is fairly small around the atomic facilities that the U.S. and Israel have bombed to date, because the ones in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan all deal with enriching uranium, rather than sparking nuclear reactions. But though small, the Tehran reactor (set up by the U.S. in 1967, when the Shah still ruled), operates as Chernobyl or Three Mile Island once did, and in the center of a city of more than nine million people. Those living closest to the reactor were told the pills should be taken by those over the age of 60 and under 40, but only when instructed by state TV, which Israel has also bombed. Read More: A New Middle East Is Unfolding Before Our EyesSo, where do things go from here? To a large extent, that depends on the actions of an Iranian regime that was already unpopular at the start of this assault. But any government bringing its own military inside Iran's borders should understand the nature of the country. Among Iranians, opposition to the government is grounded in a bedrock pride in their nation, which predates not only the Islamic Republic, but Islam itself. Some on the Iranian plateau still practice Zoroastrianism, the world's first monotheistic faith, and the foundation for an ancient empire that still informs Iranians' sense of themselves. That identity can be glimpsed in first names like Darius and Cyrus—the names of Persian emperors—and actually visible in the ruins of Persepolis. There, in the friezes depicting supplicants from nations lining up to pay fealty to the ruler of an ancient empire, some Iranians find themselves seeing the nuclear program exactly as the modern regime has cast it—as the 'inalienable right' of any signatory to Non Proliferation Treaty to pursue a nuclear program, so long as it's in Tehran, there was evidence the regime was gaining ground with a public it had largely lost. In a private chat, a university professor told a friend: "Even if Khamenei had packed up the whole nuclear program, Israel would have attacked. Their whole plan was to weaken Iran's military."
