Who Are the People Rachel Reeves Is Really Providing 'Security' For?
Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on 'what the papers don't say' - without fear or favour.
For digital and print editions, packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, features, and columns….
SUBSCRIBE
Like many Labour MPs and much of the country, I want a government capable of transforming Britain into a fairer, greener, more resilient country. That ambition is not naïve. It is necessary. We face a polycrisis: accelerating climate breakdown, deepening inequality, and rising political instability. These forces are not abstract - they are shaping our present and threatening our future, fuelling authoritarianism and undermining democracy. It's in this context that the Government operates and to this backdrop that Rachel Reeves delivered her long-awaited Spending Review.
In her speech, Reeves used the word "security" no fewer than 17 times. Security for families, businesses, energy, and the public finances. The message was clear: Labour wants to be seen as the party of stability in an unstable era. But there's a sharp disconnect between the promise and the policy. Because if this was truly a budget about economic 'security' in the way most of my constituents understand it - then sadly, it fell short. Because this budget was more about security for investors and the bond markets, than it was the millions navigating everyday precarity.
Let me explain why.
UPDATE
The 'Millionaire Exodus' the UK Media Told You About Never Actually Happened
The equivalent of 30 stories a day were published about an exodus of wealthy people that a new study finds was "non existent"
Josiah Mortimer
The Chancellor insists the review marks a break from austerity, citing major capital investment and departmental budgets set to rise by 2.3% annually. That's welcome. But it conceals a deeper tension. Day-to-day spending - the core funding that sustains our public services - remains heavily constrained. Capital spending may deliver much needed new buildings and tech upgrades, but without sufficient operational funding, those investments struggle to deliver real-world improvements. This is particularly acute in the services that support care, education, and local resilience.
Look closely, and the cracks appear. The Resolution Foundation points out that many departments still face flat or falling budgets in real terms. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), for instance, faces annual cuts of 2.3%.
This is the very department tasked with leading the UK's response to the climate emergency. From safeguarding biodiversity to managing flood defences and food security, Defra's responsibilities are central to building environmental resilience. Yet its resources are being pared back at the precise moment they should be strengthened.
And while local government funding has recently increased, it remains 50% below its 2010 level. That shortfall has hollowed out community services, from children's centres to libraries, youth support to adult social care.
Social care is a case in point. Reeves' review largely sidelines a sector that is already in crisis. Yet the link between robust social care and a functioning NHS could not be clearer. When care is unavailable, hospitals fill up. The King's Fund has warned repeatedly that discharging patients safely depends on a well-resourced care system. Without it, pressures cascade through the system - hurting patients, families, and frontline staff.
Economists call this the crisis of "social reproduction": a chronic underinvestment in the everyday systems that sustain life - care, health, education. When these are neglected, it doesn't just increase hardship. It undermines the very economic stability the government claims to be pursuing. Labour has said it wants to tackle the UK's long-standing productivity problems. But underfunding the social infrastructure people rely on - especially women, carers, and key w...
For digital and print editions, packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, features, and columns….
SUBSCRIBE
Like many Labour MPs and much of the country, I want a government capable of transforming Britain into a fairer, greener, more resilient country. That ambition is not naïve. It is necessary. We face a polycrisis: accelerating climate breakdown, deepening inequality, and rising political instability. These forces are not abstract - they are shaping our present and threatening our future, fuelling authoritarianism and undermining democracy. It's in this context that the Government operates and to this backdrop that Rachel Reeves delivered her long-awaited Spending Review.
In her speech, Reeves used the word "security" no fewer than 17 times. Security for families, businesses, energy, and the public finances. The message was clear: Labour wants to be seen as the party of stability in an unstable era. But there's a sharp disconnect between the promise and the policy. Because if this was truly a budget about economic 'security' in the way most of my constituents understand it - then sadly, it fell short. Because this budget was more about security for investors and the bond markets, than it was the millions navigating everyday precarity.
Let me explain why.
UPDATE
The 'Millionaire Exodus' the UK Media Told You About Never Actually Happened
The equivalent of 30 stories a day were published about an exodus of wealthy people that a new study finds was "non existent"
Josiah Mortimer
The Chancellor insists the review marks a break from austerity, citing major capital investment and departmental budgets set to rise by 2.3% annually. That's welcome. But it conceals a deeper tension. Day-to-day spending - the core funding that sustains our public services - remains heavily constrained. Capital spending may deliver much needed new buildings and tech upgrades, but without sufficient operational funding, those investments struggle to deliver real-world improvements. This is particularly acute in the services that support care, education, and local resilience.
Look closely, and the cracks appear. The Resolution Foundation points out that many departments still face flat or falling budgets in real terms. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), for instance, faces annual cuts of 2.3%.
This is the very department tasked with leading the UK's response to the climate emergency. From safeguarding biodiversity to managing flood defences and food security, Defra's responsibilities are central to building environmental resilience. Yet its resources are being pared back at the precise moment they should be strengthened.
And while local government funding has recently increased, it remains 50% below its 2010 level. That shortfall has hollowed out community services, from children's centres to libraries, youth support to adult social care.
Social care is a case in point. Reeves' review largely sidelines a sector that is already in crisis. Yet the link between robust social care and a functioning NHS could not be clearer. When care is unavailable, hospitals fill up. The King's Fund has warned repeatedly that discharging patients safely depends on a well-resourced care system. Without it, pressures cascade through the system - hurting patients, families, and frontline staff.
Economists call this the crisis of "social reproduction": a chronic underinvestment in the everyday systems that sustain life - care, health, education. When these are neglected, it doesn't just increase hardship. It undermines the very economic stability the government claims to be pursuing. Labour has said it wants to tackle the UK's long-standing productivity problems. But underfunding the social infrastructure people rely on - especially women, carers, and key w...
Activity