Business groups have strongly welcomed the measures in Rachel Reeves’ speech this morning,Rain Newton-Smith, CEO at the CBI, said:It’s crunch time for growth and today the chancellor has heeded business’ call to go further and faster,This is most evident in ministers grasping decisions that have sat on the desk of government for too long,This positive leadership and a clear vision to kickstart the economy and boost productivity is welcome …The chancellor’s announcements are smart, looking to leverage the UK’s strengths including our world class universities, innovation and openness to global talent,Shevaun Haviland, director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, said:The chancellor has laid down a clear marker on her intent to push for growth and these proposals can light the blue touchpaper to fire up the UK economy.

Expanding our international airport capacity, investing in modern roads and railways, and rebalancing the planning system all send signals that the UK is building for a better future.And Tina McKenzie, policy chair of the Federation of Small Businesses, said:Today’s rallying cry for government to choose growth is exactly what the economy needs.It sends a strong, confident message that from now on growth comes first, and any barriers to that will be erased.Rachel Reeves has confirmed the government will throw its weight behind a third runway at Heathrow, in an upbeat speech setting out her plans for kickstarting the stalling UK economy.In an analysis, Heather Stewart, the Guardian’s economics editor, assesses whether or not Reeves’ plan will work.

Rachel Reeves has been accused by environmental experts of putting the climate at risk with high carbon projects including the expansion of Heathrow airport,Peter Mandelson has said his past remarks that Donald Trump was “a danger to the world” were “ill-judged and wrong” before his expected confirmation as ambassador to the US,Keir Starmer has claimed the Conservatives are the “coalition of blockers” as he defended his government’s growth proposals and employment law reforms,(See 2,16pm.

)The head of the NHS in England is under fresh fire after a second influential group of MPs in barely 12 hours accused her of lacking the “drive and dynamism” to radically reform the service.Two major Conservative donors, Bassim Haidar and Mohamed Amersi, paid £25,000 each to attend a Reform fundraising dinner on Tuesday night, and sources say the party brought in pledges of more than £1m beforehand from businesspeople.And here are comments on the Rachel Reeves speech from thinktanks.From an analysis by Theo Bertram, a former Labour adviser who now runs the Social Market Foundation (centrist)Today marks a decisive shift in the politics and policy of this government.Both the strategy and substance are changing, and Labour are taking risks with both.

Labour has always talked about growth as a key mission but until now the emphasis was squarely on laying the blame on the previous administration.It went too far in that regard, giving the impression not just of being slowed but trapped by the Conservative economic legacy.Today, with just one brief reference to ‘the nightmarish inheritance’ in Keir Starmer’s article in The Times, the Prime Minister is instead bullish …Both Starmer and Reeves talked about their strategy in the terms of economic theory (something that Starmer rarely does).He describes ‘a supply-side expansion of the nation’s productive power’.Removing regulatory barriers, cutting red tape, and supply-side expansion: the remarkable thing about these goals is that they are the same goals of recent Conservative governments, under both Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss.

The big difference this time is that Labour is not promising tax cuts.This may be viewed as a weakness – what is supply side reform if businesses are hit by a growing fiscal burden? But Labour sees this as a strength.In its view, tax cuts only offer a short term “sugar high”.Starmer and Reeves have chosen the harder path, grinding away at regulatory barriers to growth.But having staked everything on that approach, including the economy and their political careers, there is reason for optimism that they might actually make progress this time.

From an analysis by Greg Thwaites at the Resolution Foundation (centrist/left-leaning)The chancellor’s speech today provided some more detail on how the government plans to boost growth.One can begin to discern the outlines of a growth strategy taking shape, and it is increasingly clear what this government wants to be known for: building things.Life is never really this simple, but if Margaret Thatcher’s defining economic legacy was to privatise, Tony Blair’s was to invest in human capital, and David Cameron’s was to rein in public spending, then Reeves’ evolving approach is about construction—of roads, railways, reservoirs, homes, and thereby, she hopes, a stronger economy.Her growth strategy is becoming more concrete in both senses of the word.From Eleanor Shearer, senior research fellow at Common Wealth (leftwing, greenish)Labour still lacks a convincing account of what is wrong with our economy.

Nothing that the chancellor said today on the need for “sound public finances” or “cutting red tape” would have been out of place in a speech from any politician of the last 15 years.Rather than getting to the heart of the matter — that we have an economy structured to put profit over people and planet — the Government has instead borrowed their big ideas from private developers, asset managers and industry lobbyists and announced a smattering of projects mainly across the South East, with the hope that benefits will trickle down to everyone else.From an analysis by Alex Chapman, senior economist at the New Economics Foundation (leftwing)Rachel Reeves’ commitment to Heathrow expansion relies on flawed economics.By the government’s own metrics, airport expansion won’t deliver serious economic growth.Business air travel peaked two decades ago and a new runway won’t change that.

​The primary impact will be to encourage UK households to spend their cash overseas, depriving high streets and domestic destinations of spending.The UK’s domestic tourism industry is already suffering.Growth in incoming tourists has been outnumbered 3:1 by Brits leaving for trips abroad.More outbound flights will deprive British regions of vital spending and is an ​‘anti-levelling up’ move.There are some comments from more rightwing thinktanks at 2.

47pm.Business groups (see 1.56pm) and right-leaning thinktanks (see 2.47pm) have welcomed the Rachel Reeves speech, but environmental groups have been very critical.Here are some of their comments.

From Roger Mortlock, CPRE chief executive at the countryside charity CPRE (formerly Campaign to Protect Rural England), said:The single biggest threat to the countryside is climate change.If the government expands Heathrow, Luton, City and Gatwick airports, the increase in carbon emissions will make a mockery of its commitment to reaching net zero by 2030.Airport expansion will do nothing to boost UK growth.There has been no net increase in air travel for business purposes or in jobs in air transport since 2007.Recent research from the New Economic Foundation indicates that airport expansion will drive significant tourism revenue abroad, not bring it to the UK.

To create the jobs of the future we need investment in low-carbon industries and transport, not more unsustainable expansion of the UK’s airports,From Richard Benwell, CEO of Wildlife and Countryside Link, a coalition of environmental groupsThe chancellor has again tried to pit nature and development against one another,It is utterly wrong to describe nature-lovers as ‘blockers’,We are a nation of nature-lovers and environmental rules are vital to protect wildlife, but with intelligent planning it is perfectly possible to achieve development and environmental recovery together,HS2 is a prime example of bad planning in a rush for growth and ‘leaving it up to developers’.

HS2 had 10 years to work out what to do about rare bats, but it delayed and dithered and made costly mistakes.These errors will only be repeated if a blinkered focus on growth ignores the opportunities to create a better system.Unthinking deregulation is simply not the answer.The rules are there to protect rare chalk streams, harvest mice and water voles, temperate rainforests and wildflower meadows - the rare and wonderful wildlife that make our country special.They’re there to protect the parks and green places that bring communities to life.

We are ready to support planning reform that supports nature recovery and infrastructure, but that can only happen if that government takes the environment seriously and stops demonising nature protection,From David Walsh, head of public affairs at WWF, the wildlife charityThere is no trade-off between economic growth and net zero,As the chancellor rightly recognises, building a clean economy is the industrial opportunity of the 21st century,Now is the time to put pounds back in people’s pockets by insulating homes, decarbonising power, and investing in public transport,But the chancellor is making a serious mistake by prioritising costly projects like airport expansions that take decades to build, send carbon emissions skywards, and leave real growth stuck on the runway.

The Women’s Budget Group, a feminist economics thinktank, thinks Rachel Reeves should have put more emphasis on social care in her growth speech.In a statement the WBG director Mary-Ann Stephenson said:The chancellor’s focus on investment is welcome, and the rise in average GDP spending to 2.6% is a positive step.However, prioritising physical infrastructure alone misses a critical barrier to a thriving economy.Our economy is being held back because people can’t access social care, get the right medical treatment when they need it, or because they cannot afford or secure a nursery place for their child.

These services - our social infrastructure - are on their knees.Waiting for the economy to grow before investing in these services overlooks a critical point: public services are the backbone of a strong economy, not a consequence of it.What’s more, the care sector is an inherently green sector: our analysis has shown that investment in the care sector could create 2.7 times as many jobs as the same investment in construction and produce 30% less greenhouse gas emissions.The SNP government in Edinburgh has said it is “deeply disappointed” by Rachel Reeves’ growth speech because of the lack of measures that will help Scotland.

In a formal government response, Kate Forbes, the deputy first minister, said:I welcome the chancellor’s attempt to outline an economic plan, after the very legitimate concerns around her approach to growth which have been raised by many since the UK budget, in particular the damaging decision to raise employers’ national insurance contributions.However, I am deeply disappointed in the lack of any initiatives which would directly benefit Scotland - especially given our energy expertise, strengths in new technologies like space and AI, world-leading universities and colleges, highly skilled workforce and our reputation as a world-class entrepreneurial nation.For instance, there is no mention of Grangemouth and I am concerned that UK government investment is being further concentrated in prosperous areas in the South East of England and around Oxford and Cambridge.This will deepen concerns that Scotland is being treated as an afterthought by this UK government.Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, has confirmed that the welfare cap – a supposed limit on certain types of welfare spending – was breached in the last financial year.

Kendall said that the cap (£137.4bn) was exceeded by £8.6bn in 2024/25, but that this had been expected for almost two years.In a written ministerial statement, she said:The forecast breach, due in particular to expected higher expenditure on universal credit and disability benefits, is unavoidable given the inheritance from the last government.The likely scale of the eventual breach has been known since March 2023.

No action was taken by the previous administration to avoid it.Whilst this government has already shown that it will not shy away from difficult decisions, this breach could only have been addressed through implementing immediate and severe cuts to welfare spending.This would not have been the right course of action.In her statement Kendall confirmed that measures will be announced later this year to control welfare spending, including reforms to health and disability spending, and measures to tackle welfare fraud.George Osborne introduced the cap when he was chancellor in 2014.

It imposes a supposed limit that can be spent on certain types of benefit (comprising roughly half total welfare spending) and, if a government breaches the cap, it must make a statement explaining itself.This was supposed to incentivise ministers to cut spending.But economists question its value.This is the fourth time the cap has been breached, and governments have responded to these breaches by changing the level at which the cap applies.In the budget last year Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, updated the cap for 2029-30, and MPs are voting on that this afternoon.

More than 1,000 people who have sought support from the vaccine damage payment scheme after being injured or bereaved as a result of Covid jabs have been waiting more than a year for a decision on their application, the Covid inquiry has been told.PA Media reports:Sarah Moore, a partner at law firm Leigh Day, told the inquiry today that there is a “real world impact” from delays.It comes as she suggested a “bespoke compensation scheme or support scheme” specifically for those affected by Covid vaccinations should be put in place.The vaccine damage payment scheme was set up as a result of the 1979 Vaccine Damage Payment Act and offers a tax-free payment of £120,000 to those who have been left severely disabled or bereaved as a result of vaccination.However, Moore said that a change of government between 1978 and 1979 meant that the legislation was “hastily put together”.

She told the inquiry there have been 17,519 applications to the vaccine damage payment scheme following adverse reactions to Covid vaccines, and only 55% have had a decision.“Of those 8,000 approximately who are still waiting for a decision, 1,027 people have been waiting for 12 months, 438 people have been waiting for more than 18 months, and 126 people have been waiting for more than two years now,” Moore added.Alex Wickham from Bloomberg says Rachel Reeves’ speech has gone down well with centre-right thinktanks.Centre-right think tanks are praising Reeves’ speech, while the main complaints come from climate groups on the left.Perhaps suggests she has begun to make a successful move back to the middle ground of British politics after the budget.

And presents a big problem for Kemi Badenoch?CPS @rcolvile: “The vast bulk of the Chancellor’s speech was hugely welcome”Britain Remade @samrichardswebb: “For too long, Britain has failed to build the new homes, clean energy infrastructure, and transport links we desperately need,Today’s speech contained concrete steps towards changing that”IEA @TomClougherty: “The Chancellor is saying all the right things on growth and should be applauded for many of the decisions she has taken today”Conservative Environment Network @samuelhall0: “These are good market-friendly policies that Conservatives will regret not delivering in government”On Friday it will be the fifth anniversary of the day the UK left the European Union,YouGov says the number of people who thnk that was the right decision is down to a record low in its polling, at 30%,The number of Britons saying the UK was right to vote to leave the EU has hit its lowest level since the referendum, ahead of the fifth anniversary of Brexit on FridayRight to vote to leave: 30% (-3 from Nov)Wrong to vote to leave: 55% (=) pic,twitter.

com/DnLuZhPMYTYouGov says only 11% of people, and only 22% of people who voted leave, think it has been a success.Has Brexit been more of a success or more of a failure?All BritonsMore of a success: 11%More of a failure: 62%Neither: 20%Leave votersMore of a success: 22%More of a failure: 32%Neither: 38%https://t.co/fTW8FpEmo1 pic.twitter.com/sHbXIoZVAnAnd it says that 55% of people are in favour of rejoining