Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What major new spending commitments has Labour added since the last manifesto?
Executive summary
Labour’s government has added large capital and targeted programme commitments since the 2024 manifesto: a headline £113bn boost to capital infrastructure over the spending review period and multi‑billion commitments for nuclear, home‑insulation and Sizewell C among others [1] [2] [3]. At the same time, day‑to‑day departmental settlements are being tightly managed — with modest real‑terms rises overall but cuts to some unprotected areas — and watchdogs warn the package implies either tougher fiscal choices or higher revenues later [4] [5] [6].
1. Big new capital spending: a £113bn infrastructure push
The most prominent addition since the manifesto is the spending review’s declaration of a roughly £113bn capital boost for energy, transport and other infrastructure projects — a deliberate pivot toward investment‑led growth that the Treasury and Labour present as enabled by changes to fiscal rules [1] [5]. The Institute for Government notes higher capital budgets but emphasises these are funded within tight overall day‑to‑day spending envelopes [5].
2. Green transition: manifesto pledge retained and re‑phased into multi‑year plans
Labour’s “Green Prosperity” investment pledge — often cited as up to £28bn a year — has been presented more as a ramped, multi‑year programme rather than an immediate annual hike; analysts describe it effectively as closer to a £20bn‑a‑year trajectory in early years and stress that the specifics of spending matter more than headline totals [6]. The spending review confirmed sustained funding for home‑insulation “warm homes” commitments (£13.2bn across 2025‑26 to 2029‑30) and other green tech pots, though detailed allocations for some manifesto‑named vehicles such as Great British Energy/GB Energy appear smaller or reconfigured [2] [3].
3. Nuclear and energy: new directed funding and reallocation questions
The review included fresh or continued funding for nuclear projects: a £2.7bn commitment to continue Sizewell C construction in 2025‑26 and reports that GB Energy (formerly Great British Nuclear) was assigned around £2.5bn for small nuclear, which observers worry may crowd out spending on wind and solar [3] [2]. Carbon Brief and Financial Times reporting flagged tensions between officials and energy companies over how promised sums were allocated and renamed to make manifesto commitments “add up” [2].
4. Health and defence: protection and reprioritisation
Labour has ringfenced significant uplifts for the NHS and defence within the review: Reuters noted increases for day‑to‑day health spending and extra capital for the service in the first budget (day‑to‑day health spending up by £22.6bn and capital by £3.1bn in an early budget figure) and multiple sources highlight higher defence commitments and new sovereign programmes such as warhead and autonomous systems funding [7] [8] [9]. The Institute for Government warns that prioritising these areas squeezes other departmental budgets, implying real‑terms cuts outside protected services [4] [5].
5. Day‑to‑day spending: modest rises but tight room for service improvements
Official plans imply day‑to‑day departmental spending will rise modestly — around 1.2% real terms annually between 2025/26 and 2028/29 — but that figure masks significant redistribution to protected areas and leaves unprotected services facing real cuts of around 2.4% per year by some estimates [4]. The Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Institute for Government both say these choices may limit Labour’s ability to deliver the performance improvements voters expect without further fiscal adjustments [6] [5].
6. Fiscal trade‑offs and warnings from analysts
Multiple independent bodies flagged that the package’s scale will require “chunky” fiscal trade‑offs: the IFS warned that added commitments combined with restored benefits and child‑poverty measures would imply significant tax rises are needed if other pressures persist [1] [6]. Political opponents and conservative analysts have produced alternative tallies arguing Labour’s additional spending could be hundreds of pounds per year in unfinanced commitments, but those partisan estimates rest on different inclusion rules and assumptions [10].
7. What’s not clearly covered in current reporting
Available sources do not mention a comprehensive line‑by‑line reconciliation showing which manifesto items were newly added versus simply rephased or reallocated within the spending review; they also do not provide a single net total that isolates only “additions since the manifesto” separate from manifesto commitments that were reaffirmed (not found in current reporting). Analysts therefore must piece together headline commitments, manifesto carryovers and departmental reallocations to assess net new spending.
Conclusion — the headline and the caveat: Labour has shifted the fiscal emphasis toward big capital programmes — £113bn of infrastructure, continued green investments and nuclear commitments — while protecting health and defence; independent analysts say those choices squeeze other services and imply hard fiscal trade‑offs or future revenue rises [1] [2] [4] [6].