Unlock Editor’s Digest Lock for Free
Are you not being entertained? Frankly, you just saw the show. This is a big plan that voters have waited almost a year before they can see it. After a massive tax rise and a few political missteps, this was the moment when Rachel Reeves stood in the Commons Arena – the weapons were not too far, but rather burning a fiery rebellion.
So did we have fun? Or, in other words, are we sure? If this is a plan – and the spending she departed on Wednesday must be for this Congress period – her story must hook the country.
The first thing to say is that there were some good things about the statement. The central economic and political debate of workers is that their mission is to invest in the structure of the state. The closest to economic strategies is their belief in an investment-driven recovery prepared by infrastructure spending. The need for more capital expenditures is uncontroversial. From reservoirs to railways, the UK has lost its building skills. The long-promised project has disappeared into the fog of Brexit, the pandemic, and the politics of the sky announcement.
While we can discuss concerns about the specific projects and overall levels of public debt, this £113 billion investment spray has been a major step in an essential direction. Funds have been set up for transportation, defense hardware, nuclear power plants and other energy investments and social housing. There is a considerable amount of money in areas beyond London during the revival of Boris Johnson’s pledge to “level up” the country, this time backed by essential planning reforms. These are great calls, and Reeves and Kier’s Starge deserve their credit.
However, there are three issues that stop the crowd from rising up. The first is that major capital projects take years. The country is used to its vision. Visions are taken away when the money gets tough. Second, while awaiting these necessary investments, voters still feel more painful than the cost of public service living and fraying.
George Osborne’s comparison with austerity years is misunderstood. Since the election, money has flowed into the department, but at a level where Labour MPs don’t match the need for FRET. They worry that voters will not be able to benefit from this investment despite feeling the negative impact of close daily public spending.
For example, do you think this settlement is more consistent with a public mood than a crime or public order? The government, which seeks to send a small number of people to prisons, has seen police officers seriously stretch and can’t stop much lower levels of crime. Meanwhile, businesses will be worried about the prime minister who is likely to be forced to raise more taxes than they’ll come in the fall to deal with these political fears.
Among other things, the expenditure review envisions a level of effectiveness in finding savings and providing reforms that this government does not yet own. Even with AI magic bullets, some of the promised efficiency savings look amazing. Health services alone cost £9 billion over three years. Overall, it is 13.8 billion pounds. The savings of around £1 billion are assumed from the promise to close hotels in exile.
Implementation will be everything. The NHS revision is a top priority and, of course, the main winner of the spending review. But almost a year later, we are still waiting for a 10-year NHS plan. Our Social Care review promises to provide ideas on how to make better use of existing money by 2026. Health Secretary Wes Street is one of the few finest performers in the cabinet, but it remains to be seen whether his walk will suit his story.
The defense worked well (but still works better than many claims needed). But cash rises with growing threats, but the decline in procurement remains one of the scandals of recent decades. This test is whether this mod is more effective in how you spend your money than your predecessor.
Additionally, you may ask whether the Labour Party has a stomach for the welfare savings they need. Recent retreats suggest that this is not the case. Or whether investment in skills training is sufficient to ensure those building plans that the UK will build, taking into account the clampdown of immigrants. Critics can also point out additional workplace regulations and tax increases for businesses that could hinder the worker’s growth agenda.
Still, Reeves’ intentions and instincts to curb current spending while investing in infrastructure are almost right. However, workers’ political weakness remains a question of implementation questions and the inability to weave compelling narratives about these plans. Neither Reeves nor Starmer Command Public Trust, nor the talent of a storyteller. Unlike the gladiators of Russell Crowe, they don’t do spectacles.
So, we may look back at this government calmly as something that has done a lot of important things but has failed to deposit political credibility in the bank. Labour must hope that this spending will allow the public to argue that the public has turned the corner over the next four years.
Labour played a big role. It’s a decent plan, but now it’s going to be implemented. If we don’t immediately convince you, it may be because they have not been that persuasive up until now.
robert.shrimsley@ft.com
