Has Rachel Reeves made the right choices? Our panel responds to the spending review | Polly Toynbee, Kirsty Major, Sahil Dutta, Dhananjayan Sriskandarajah and Jonny Roberts
This was a reward for construction, construction, construction. Get those drilling for which you are digging Social purpose And growth, with railways, tram, isolated homes and much more. This extends 39 billion pounds for social housing to 300,000 new homes per year, and has not been reached for half a century.
Meanwhile, it is high for profit for Net Zero, with billions of Macho nuclear plants roaming in network control, climate and climate repair, who believe that air mills are for anger.
this 113 billion pounds sterling capital A story in the end seems to work vigorously. The facts on the ground are good, but a richer narration of social justice is still missing. Borrowing rules change to allow spending on capital, but why don’t you invest in human capital, when nothing can be built without human skills?
The gold counselor shower needs a spray of political perpetrator dust: “renewal” appears like reforms, but work messages need to raise hearts and hopes. This gastone in the ground must be quickly to start growth, to ensure that people give the credit they deserve to finish austerity.
Defense gets the necessary catapult, and protects us with cables under the sea, but its vital purpose is to a political link in the lost Europe that we left recklessly. Health gets a fillip unexpectedly larger, but by 40 %, so this is the maximum percentage of GDP. No more growth in the old spending, while schools do not get very little. In the long run, thinking requires the opposite of these priorities, which tends to balance towards young people and the future. Leave autumn Child poverty work band Do this, with a strong social social message to spoil the legend of work.
Deputy Editor -in -chief of opinion in the guardian
The Rachel Reeves pledge, which is roaming in the title of 39 billion pounds for housing at reasonable and social prices, depends on one major assumption: that the housing crisis is caused by a lack of supply.
By increasing the number of homes, logic goes, prices will be transferred down, and the ability to bear the costs will be resolved. Funding comes in addition to changes on Planning regulations It aims to enhance home construction throughout the country. By placing drivers on the ground, the consultant hopes to solve two problems at the same time – placing the keys in their hands and enhancing economic growth. Stylish solution, right?
Well, it would be if the British housing crisis is a problem with the display side. But it is not. If you do not believe me, just ask obr. In the spring of this year, the authority predicted that these changes in the planning policy may only decrease the prices of home 0.8 % By 2029, the average price of the UK house is 271,415 pounds sterling – This means that it will decrease to 269,243 pounds. Not something, but it’s away from something.
The demand has been artificially amplified in the UK since the 1980s through a mixture of relaxation and pressure lending rules from real estate owners and foreign investors. There is no point in housing at reasonable prices – housing that is sold percentage of the market price – if the market price rises. Yes, families will be able to leave accommodations in emergency situations and have surfaces over their heads, and some tenants from the private sector may be able to accommodate the housing association. This is to be celebrated in the short term. But there is no benefit in more housing in the council if the waiting lists persist in the rise because the rents in the private sector continue to rise. There is no use in more homes if people cannot buy them.
the job Terminal Rights Law You may go to some extent to reduce some of this request. The proposals are taking place Float To relieve mortgage lending will not. We will have to wait and see how these policies play in the housing market. Since things are standing, the new financing is a step in the right direction, but there is no solution.
Lecturer in political economy
With raw numbers alone, the Labor Party can say this It does not return to austerity. After all, the government will clarify billions of dollars for capital projects, and the daily NHS spending will rise. But for many, he will not feel this way.
Because the living reality of austerity was not about spending in the total. It was about who and what we prioritized as a society. Money was stripped of youth, patients, poor, arts, education and local government. Workers and regions were decomposed from the “low productivity” sectors, while wealth has already heated on the wealthy.
In installing it on the imagination of high economic growth, the work cannot completely separate from it. Instead, the financial demolition focused on the high productivity sectors in the hope that this would be a industrial strategy. Investing in technology, research, development and AI will be impressive. But the sector is already steeped in criticism – what it lacks is a useful purpose and a suitable organization. Likewise, whatever the geopolitical context, there is little evidence that military industrial spending is an effective way to enhance work and growth, or improve people’s lives. The most promising is the additional financing for housing at reasonable prices. However, councils with resource deficiency can be struggled to contain predators for private buildings.
There was once when Rachel Reeves spoke about the importance of the daily economy, but from the army to technology to construction companies, it is the leading highlands for the private sector that should be the happiest today.
CEO of the New Economics Corporation
Spending on capital alone will not improve people’s living standards. Additional investment may mean that we can build more houses, renewable energy, their general transport and other vital infrastructure. Despite its hopes that this economy is renewed in the coming years, we also need an urgent work to improve people’s lives today.
There was a lot of talk about security – 17 in the speech, not less than that – but I am afraid to transfer money into defensive spending, the advisor overlooks the economic security of the family as a lever for growth. Unless we also enhance daily spending in the main departments, living levels will continue to decrease. In fact, maintaining the ceiling of benefits is that investing in social infrastructure will improve almost immediately and have long -term effects.
In such days, it is clear that the government has fallen victim to the “cabinet brain”, full of ancient and arbitrary financial rules that it has set itself. Instead, you should find better ways to assess safe borrowing levels and tax wealth in line with other forms of income so that we can treat poverty, reduce inequality and protect our planet.
The only father works part -time, which he participates in Change facts, Almost 200 parents cooperated at low income working with researchers at York University
The advisor’s speech today represents a welcoming change in a tone about the future – where less focus on economic misery, and heavier on hope and investment. But what millions of parents are like me, who are struggling with costs, needed to hear more about it is how Reeves’s vision actually turns into reality.
How will the promise be made to make sure that “every child has a chance of prosperity”? Especially when there was nothing in this spending review to end the maximum child or provide support to families in poverty by investing in social security, everything is fateful when it is scheduled to hold work spending and pensions by 0.2 %.
What will the (excellent) expansion of free school meals mean all global credit claims for support extending in school through the premium of students? And when will the free breakfast clubs, which started in 750 schools, will be offered everywhere?
The advisor was opened by noting that people want to feel a change in their societies. Last week, Change facts and ppr A series of measures that would make real invasions to address the economic hardship faced by families like Lee. Today we are still awaiting the anticipation of anxiety for the budget strategy and the strategy of children’s poverty this fall, and in the hope of real change, which must simply come.
