Rachel Reeves has set out the budgets for each government department over the coming years. Sky News correspondents have answered some of your burning questions, including on tax and the winter fuel allowance.
Wednesday 11 June 2025 16:31, UK
Thanks for joining us, and for submitting your questions.
You can catch up by scrolling back through the blog.
For continued coverage of the spending review, head to the Politics Hub:
Rachel Reeves committed specific amounts of money for spending projects across Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland today.
They got 拢52bn, 拢23bn, and 拢20bn respectively.
Sam asks: Is the money for the devolved nations an additional amount, and how many years does the funding cover?
Our political correspondent Rob Powell says:
The funding for the devolved nations covers the same period as the whole spending review 鈥� so early 2028 for day-to-day spending and early 2029 for capital spending (infrastructure etc).
It's money the nations would have been expecting as spending by the UK government on England-only services automatically triggers money going to the other parts of the UK.
However, they would not have known the exact figure because some of the funding announced today covers the whole of the UK, while other bits are restricted to England and hence trigger the knock-on payments (or consequentials to use the jargon).
Tap here for a breakdown of the spending plans for Scotland in the Politics Hub.
There were lots of big numbers associated with Rachel Reeves' announcements today - well suited to a massive Ed Conway chart.
Just take a look below:
Lots of you have asked where the money's coming from.
James asks: How are all these commitments going to be funded given the country's borderline stagnant economy and high tax take?
Our business and economics correspondent Gurpreet Narwan says:
The chancellor has signed up to a set of rules that guide her decision-making when it comes to spending, tax, and borrowing.
Day-to-day spending on things like prisons, schools, and nurses has to be covered by tax receipts.
The government has already hiked taxes to pay for the latest spending increases, while the chancellor is hoping for a good story on economic growth that will bolster the tax intake.
However, she has left herself with very little room to manoeuvre against her fiscal rules. If the economy disappoints, she may be back asking for more in tax.
It is also worth pointing out that some of those increases are smaller than they appear. The vast majority is going to protected departments, like health and defence. Others, like the Defra, are facing outright cuts.
She has more breathing room when it comes to investment, or capital spending, which she has allowed herself to fund through extra borrowing.
That being said it does incur the cost of additional debt interest. The question is: will those investments actually unlock economic growth?
There was pretty much no mention of culture, media, and sport by the chancellor today.
Ant wants to know how much money is going into that department.
Our political correspondent Tamara Cohen says:
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is unprotected and its day-to-day budget will be cut in real terms by 1.4%. It will also have to find efficiency savings.
The budget is 2.4bn this year, falling to 拢2.3bn for the next two years, despite inflation. The final year of the parliament will see a projected rise to 拢2.8bn.
But capital spending will amount to nearly 拢3bn across the three-year period.
Lisa Nandy, the culture secretary, says that means "transformational" changes to sports facilities, youth centres and cultural institutions. She said gaming, fashion, music, and the arts would all benefit.
We don't yet know what it will all go on - It's not enough to be transformational for that many venues. Some of it will be outlined in a Youth Strategy later this year.
But she's promised improvements to national museums and galleries; and cultural and heritage institutions in towns and cities. There's likely to be a bun fight for a share of this.
The government identified the creative industries as one of eight "growth driving" sectors last year. The Women's Rugby World Cup 2025, Tour de France 2027 and UEFA Euro 2028 are all events the government hopes will drive an economic and tourism boost.
The Tories have been quick to claim the spending commitments made today will require tax rises - something the government disputes.
But what about local authorities?
Brian asks: Will my council tax go up by more than 5%?
Our political correspondent Rob Powell says:
That depends on where you live!
Here's a less boring answer though 鈥� unlikely, but it's not out of the question.
If a council wants to put council tax up by more than 5% then generally they need to have a local referendum to get approval from voters.
But but but, some councils can do it without a vote, if there are exceptional circumstances 鈥� such as serious financial issues.
This has happened in a handful of places including Birmingham, Bradford, and Windsor.
So the best bet is to look at the state of your council. If everything looks broadly stable then you can expect a maximum rise of 3%, plus another 2% if it provides social care.
The NHS already had a huge budget - and it got a healthy uplift today.
An extra 拢29bn a year will be spent on the health service, a 3% rise, but will that be enough? The Lib Dems say the government won't fix the NHS without fixing social care.
Little simply asks: Is there going to be more money for social care?
Our health correspondent Laura Bundock says:
It's a great question. Although the NHS has done well, there's a strong argument that without enough extra cash going into services which support health like social care, it will be tough to improve health services.
So what have we learnt from the spending review? In a nutshell, there is more money for social care, but the funding structure is complex and depends where you live.
Many say it hasn't been given the focus it needs, and health bosses are warning that threadbare funding to social care is a "significant blocker" when it comes to the NHS improving.
There is a commitment to a pay deal for people who work in social care, which should encourage and boost recruitment, but we don't have the detail on how much this would cost, and which budget pot it comes out of.
An independent review has been commissioned b, butt will take three years to make recommendations about reform in social care, and that's simply not soon enough for many.
You'll recall the Labour government made itself very unpopular with farmers and pensioners last year.
We all know now about its U-turn on winter fuel, but was there anything else for these cohorts today?
The brilliantly named Clown In Orbit asks: What investment is there in farming? And will pensioners get last year's winter fuel allowance backdated?
Our political correspondent Rob Powell says:
The winter fuel question here is easier to answer - no, it won't be backdated to include last year.
If you lost out after the chancellor changed eligibility in July 2024, you won't get that money back. But you may get a payment this year after the government's screeching U-turn.
On farming, Defra 鈥� which is responsible for the area 鈥� is seeing a cut in budgets after inflation.
This isn't surprising though given it is unprotected and hence vulnerable because of the extra money going into health and defence.
That said, the cuts are not as deep as had been expected and the farming union, the NFU, seems broadly happy and says the agricultural budget has been protected.
So farming certainly hasn鈥檛 been prioritised by the government, but it isn't a big loser either.
Social and affordable housing was one of the winners of today's spending review with 拢39bn committed.
That's the biggest cash investment for 50 years, the chancellor said.
Ethan asks: What does the increase in housing spending mean for the housing market? Will house prices and rent prices come down due to the increase in social housing?
Our business and economics correspondent Gurpreet Narwan says:
It is too early to tell.
The investment has been welcomed by the industry and will go some way to alleviating the housing crisis in parts of the country.
In determining the impact, much depends on where that money is spent and how it is distributed.
If the government wants to bring down housing costs, it is vital that those homes are built in the right places, where the gap in supply and demand is greatest.
Local markets will behave differently according to their individual dynamics.
One of the chancellor's most eye-catching commitments today was the government would end the use of hotels to house asylum seekers by 2029, helped by more funding to clear the backlog of claims.
Malcolm asks: If Labour are going to end the use of hotels to house asylum seekers, where are they likely to be sheltered instead?
Our political correspondent Rob Powell says:
For those asylum seekers who need to be put up, the government wants to switch back to using more regular temporary accommodation 鈥� in other words, houses and flats.
This has in the past been a primary way of accommodating asylum seekers through a system known as "dispersal housing".
There's historically been a big role for the private sector too, with companies like Serco and Clearsprings buying up property and charging the government for housing asylum seekers in them.
Government sources have suggested the state may also be buying more temporary accommodation directly - as that's part of the reason for a big increase in the Communities and Local Government capital budget in the next year or two.
But ministers are also arguing it will bring down the overall number of asylum seekers needing to be housed by speeding up decision-making on claims, deporting those who have no right to be here, and stopping people crossing the Channel in smaller boats.
Of course, all of that is easier said than done!
A lot of the investment announcements made by Rachel Reeves do extend well into the next parliament.
Sizewell C, the new nuclear plant in Suffolk, for example, won't be built until some time in the 2030s.
Tim asked: Why do governments promise to do things by a date after the next election is due? Do they think we are all stupid?
Our political correspondent Tamara Cohen says:
I understand your cynicism Tim, but capital projects - like new hospitals, railways, and housing developments - do take a while to build.
Putting money in up front lets spades get in the ground, and gives certainty to private sector investors.
If you look at the biggest single measure - 拢39bn for a successor to the Affordable Homes Programme, this is over 10 years. It will reach 拢4bn a year by 2029-30.
In some cases, housing associations will be buying up vacant homes built by developers, and this money guarantees rent over the coming years.
Sometimes long-term projects are cancelled - see the eastern leg of HS2, or many of the "new hospitals" promised by Boris Johnson.
But plenty of capital projects have been developed by successive governments based on long-term funding.
