AG百家乐在线官网

Another development that may have slipped past you while the spending review was underway came from the United States.

Reuters, among other, have been told that the Trump administration is carrying a review of the landmark AUKUS agreement.

This is a deal between Australia, the UK and the US announced under Boris Johnson and Joe Biden.

It is supposed to help Australia acquire nuclear-powered submarines, as well as other defence partnerships.

While some have reported concerns in Canberra and London due to the decision, on the record the UK government seems a bit more sanguine.

They have pointed out the Labour government did a review when they came to power.

A Foreign Office spokesperson said: "AUKUS is a landmark security and defence partnership with two of our closest allies.

"It is one of the most strategically important partnerships in decades, supporting peace and security in the Indo-Pacific and Euro-Atlantic, while also delivering jobs and economic growth in communities across all three nations.

"It is understandable that a new administration would want to review its approach to such a major partnership, just as the UK did last year. 

"The UK will continue to work closely with the US and Australia at all levels to maximise the benefits and opportunities which AUKUS presents for our three nations."

A US official told Reuters that the idea is to ensure the "initiative of the previous administration is aligned with the president's America first agenda".

The government has told MPs it will not back down from its controversial reforms to disability benefits, which are set to be introduced to parliament later this month.

More than 100 Labour MPs are thought to have concerns about the plans to cut nearly 拢5bn from the welfare bill by restricting personal independence payments (PIP) and the health top-up to Universal Credit.

Charities say the changes will have a "catastrophic" effect on vulnerable people.

The chair of the Commons' Work and Pensions Committee wrote to the secretary of state, Liz Kendall, last month, calling on the government to delay the changes until a full assessment is carried out of the impact on employment, poverty and health.

Labour MP Debbie Abrahams wrote that while there was a case for reform to disability benefits, "the evidence indicated [these changes] might not improve outcomes for most claimants, but instead push many into poverty and further away from the labour market".

Turning away from the spending review, we've had a bit more on the news that the UK, Gibraltar and Europe have agreed a new deal on their relationship.

Downing Street says Sir Keir Starmer has spoken with Gibraltar's chief minister, Fabian Picardo, and the prime minister of Spain, Pedro Sanchez.

According to Number 10, Sanchez "congratulated" Starmer "on his leadership", adding his government "succeeded where others had failed".

This could be read as a criticism of previous Tory governments, or an acknowledgement Starmer had made concessions, depending on who you ask.

The spokesperson added: "Both leaders also agreed that this development unlocks huge opportunity to advance the bilateral relationship between the UK and Spain, on behalf of the British and Spanish people."

Downing Street said that, during the call between Starmer and Picardo, the British PM thanked Picardo "for his years of hard work, commitment, and leadership to reach an agreement 鈥� adding that it was fantastic to see that it had been profusely welcomed by all sides".

The chancellor has unveiled her long-awaited spending review, which sets out detailed plans for how individual government departments are funded over the next three years.

Rachel Reeves says departmental budgets will grow by an average of 2.3% a year, prioritising health, defence and infrastructure projects - but how will this be paid for? And does this make a change for working people as promised by her government?

In today's episode, political correspondent Tamara Cohen speaks to economics and data editor Ed Conway about the ambitious figures.

By Becky Johnson, social affairs correspondent

There are more than 30,000 asylum seekers currently in hotels. 

The government says it will invest more in clearing the backlog of claims, but around half of people are usually successful - more when you count those allowed to stay following an appeal. 

They'll all need to live somewhere.

Even as Rachel Reeves prepared her speech, more boats were arriving on the Kent coast. With a steady flow of arrivals it will be impossible to completely clear the backlog. 

Some form of accommodation will be needed.

Watch: Chancellor vows to end use of asylum hotels

Serco, which has a government contract for housing asylum seekers, is advertising for private landlords who may be interested in renting their properties. 

That has the potential to create competition with local residents looking for places to live - it could push prices up and reduce supply.

That risks cancelling at least some benefits of measures announced by the government to tackle the UK's continuing housing crisis.

Closing hotels to migrants may be a vote winner - but it won't solve the problems created by tens of thousands of new arrivals each year. 

Former Labour shadow chancellor John McDonnell tells Ali Fortescue he welcomes the chancellor's infrastructure investments today.

He says it's "make or break" after "14 years of underinvestment", which the still suspended Labour MP says has "really hit us hard".

Unfortunately, he says it "won't work".

'It's not austerity - but it'll feel like it'

McDonnell says that's because investment like that announced today takes some time for people to feel the benefits of, and in the meantime the government is inflicting cuts to the welfare budget.

"It might not be mathematical austerity," he says, but it will feel like it for the poorest people in society if the benefits cuts go through.

He predicts backbenchers will be "forcing a rethink in the coming weeks", despite the work and pensions secretary today insisting she will be going through with the controversial changes.

Shadow chancellor Mel Stride is continuing his tour of the TV studios criticising the spending review.

Speaking to Ali Fortescue, he argues that Rachel Reeves will have to raise taxes come the autumn.

But Ali points out the "precarious" state of the finances that the Conservatives left.

Asked if he will apologise for the mini-budget - having criticised Liz Truss in a speech last week - the shadow chancellor does not do so.

But he does say such an event "will never, ever happen again".

Stride adds that "fiscal responsibility" is "in the DNA" of the Conservatives.

Ali points out that Reeves mentioned Reform several times in her statement today - and asks if Nigel Farage is now the real opposition.

"No, we are the official opposition," Stride says, adding that is why he was responding to the spending review today.

He is technically correct, in that regard.

Asked if it's frustrating that Truss comes up so often, Stride glosses over the question and attacks both Labour and Reform.

Treasury minister Emma Reynolds is the minister speaking to Ali Fortescue for the Politics Hub this evening.

She is pushed on a facet of the spending review that many have wanted to know the answer to - will it require tax rises.

Like her colleague Darren Jones earlier, Reynolds says today's announcement spends the money raised in the budget and spring statement Rachel Reeves had already made.

But pushed by Ali on whether further tax rises are being ruled out, Reynolds says: "I'm not ruling it in, I'm not ruling it out."

She played down the likelihood of another budget like last year's, saying that was a "once in a generation" event.

Arriving for this evening's meeting between the chancellor and Labour parliamentarians, the health secretary was upfront with waiting reporters about his view on today's spending allocations.

"Just basking in the warm glow of the benevolent chancellor," said Wes Streeting - presumably only half joking.

A better story to tell voters?

The focus of Rachel Reeves's address to the party troops was they need to get out and sell what she had announced at the despatch box.

"People are only going to know the good news that we set out today if we campaign on it, if we deliver the leaflets, if we speak to people on the doorstep, if we write those pieces for our local papers, that is how people are going to know that it is Labour making these differences," she said.

The political hope from today is the government has given backbenchers a better story to tell.

One government source said measures like free school meals and NHS spending would be felt in all constituencies, giving MPs something to campaign on.

Ditto with infrastructure spending for those lucky enough to see cash splashed in their region.

In all but exceptional circumstances, these party gatherings aren't usually the moment for open dissent.

And indeed, there was plenty of laughing and joking from behind the closed doors of Committee Room 10 and apparently few challenging questions for the chancellor.

One person did ask about policing funding, I'm told, but no one brought up council tax, asylum hotels or welfare.

One MP even emerged from the meeting clutching a copy of the spending review document signed by Reeves and her deputy Darren Jones.

Asked if anyone else had asked for a signed copy of the document, one source said "Wes", before clarifying that was a joke.

Today's spending review is a big moment - a moment when the chancellor works out how 拢600bn of our money is spent. 

This is the moment the Labour government really sets out what it's for. 

The message today: we're turning a corner.

Rachel Reeves wants us to know she is spending - and she is: billions on hospitals, schools, transport.

Things can only get better鈥� eventually?

There are losers too, places where spending will be squeezed.

But for me there are two big questions today.

Firstly, the thing about capital spending - things like a train line between Liverpool and Manchester or nuclear energy - is it takes time to actually be felt by the public. People will need to be patient. 

And after years of this, a decade of gloom, people being told to wait because things will get better, there might not much patience about. 

Does the chancellor need a raincoat?

The other big question is whether Reeves is really just crossing her fingers, rolling the dice on an unpredictable economic backdrop. 

When Harold Wilson was prime minister he said: "I'm an optimist, but an optimist who carries a raincoat."

Has Reeves got a raincoat? Is she being totally straight today about some of the difficult choices that might be ahead? 

Just because you tell people the economy is improving, doesn't mean it is.