Who Are the People Rachel Reeves Is Really Providing ‘Security’ For?

Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

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 workers – isn’t just socially damaging; it’s economically self-defeating.

EXCLUSIVE

BBC Bosses Draw Up Plans to Win Over Reform Voters by Changing News and Drama Output

The Director General Tim Davie and other executives discussed altering BBC “story selection” in order to secure the “trust” of supporters of Nigel Farage’s party

Adam Bienkov

Even the headline NHS funding uplift – 3% a year – doesn’t tell the full story. Yes, it’s higher than in recent Conservative budgets. But it falls below the 3.3% average growth delivered under previous Labour governments. And the new money leans heavily toward capital expenditure: technology, buildings, and equipment. Great news for developers and corporations and their profit-margins and share-holder value. 

Of course hardware and buildings matter, but they don’t address the most urgent pressures – staffing shortfalls, burnout, and the need for better patient care. As economist James Meadway argues, this approach risks “investing in machines but neglecting the people who operate them” – a short-sighted trade-off when workforce morale is already stretched to breaking point.

Then there’s defence. Military spending will rise significantly, pushing the UK’s defence budget to levels not seen since the Cold War. That signals a stark prioritisation. The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) notes that defence is one of the least effective areas of public spending for job creation or reducing inequality. Dubbed as “military Keynesianism” – it is in effect a redirection of public investment toward carbon-intensive and geopolitically volatile sectors, while the social state remains underpowered. 

Perhaps, as a country, we might decide this is a trade-off worth making. But if so, it’s vital the Government is honest about it. These are not painless ‘win-wins’ – they are real, often stark, choices. In some cases, quite literally, they are decisions between warfare and welfare. True, socialism has always been the language of priorities. But democracy must be the language of candour.

Ultimately, this Spending Review was not just about spending choices  – it was about ideology. A familiar narrative has re-emerged in British politics: one that equates economic growth with national security, and fiscal restraint with responsibility. Yet this logic is deeply flawed. Growth that fails to lift living standards or strengthen the social fabric; growth that trickles down through defence contractors and infrastructure firms while care workers and councils are left behind, is not a sign of stability. It’s an illusion of control. As President Biden found to his cost, pursuing growth without visibly improving everyday life leaves the door wide open for disillusionment – and for opponents ready to exploit it.

This isn’t the Labour vision many of us fought for. Reeves once championed the “everyday economy”—the foundational sectors that support daily life and anchor communities. Yet in this budget, those sectors are largely overlooked. The rhetoric of security may be new, but the policy logic – prioritising fiscal headroom over social investment – feels all too familiar.

And some austerity-era policies haven’t just been left intact – they’ve been reaffirmed. The two-child limit on benefits remains in place, as do cuts to disability support. As the New Economics Foundation puts it, “These cuts aren’t marginal – they deepen poverty and exacerbate hardship for millions. They’re a political choice, not an economic necessity.”

True security can’t be delivered by capital investment alone. It requires a different model: one grounded in fairness, care, and a real commitment to the social fabric. That means affordable housing, accessible education, properly funded care, and decent pay for the people who keep the country running. It means progressive tax reform – taxing wealth like income, clamping down on avoidance, and freeing ourselves from outdated fiscal rules that strangle investment where it’s most needed.

Because real security is not a line item on a Treasury spreadsheet. It’s whether your child’s school has enough teachers. Whether your mum can get the care she needs. Whether your rent is affordable and your wages can carry you through the month. That’s the security people feel. And it’s what they’ll remember when they go to vote.

This Spending Review may talk the language of stability. But it does not yet deliver on its promise. Until Labour is ready to invest not just in infrastructure, but in the people and places that form the bedrock of society, we will be left with security in name – but not in practice.