Thursday’s newspapers react to the Spending Review announced by the Chancellor in the Commons yesterday. It won’t come as much of a surprise, but the left and right-wing media had a fairly different reaction to the chancellor’s announcements.
The right’s outrage at expected tax rises in the autumn to pay for the ‘splurge’ is contrasted by the left’s more positive tone as they say that the injection of cash will ‘rebuild Britain.’
The Guardian says the NHS and defence are the “big winners” of the spending review. The paper says the chancellor has launched a “charm offensive” to concerned Labour MPs about the rise of Reform UK by telling them that the review “was not a return to austerity.”
This headline frames Reeves’ strategy as a risky move, using “gambles” to suggest uncertainty or desperation. It implies that her focus on “renewing Britain” is more about political gain than genuine policy, subtly questioning her motives. It’s a tactic that casts doubt while appearing neutral.
The FT says the NHS, defence and education are the winners from the review but the Home Office, Foreign Office and Culture Department face a “squeeze”. The paper reports Reeves has said her review is a “rejection of austerity” but the IFS warns “things look tighter” from mid-2026. The paper celebrates her for directing funds at affordable housing, regional connectivity and energy security but calls for broader reforms of the tax system, and to pay for more training of construction workers and engineers.
This headline is more neutral in tone but still uses quotation marks around “renewal,” which can signal scepticism or cast doubt on the term’s legitimacy. The large £113bn figure is foregrounded for impact, subtly inviting readers to question the scale or cost of the plan. It’s a mild example of framing through tone and emphasis.
The i Paper says the Home Office is the “biggest loser” from the review and that council tax is “likely to rise” after a squeeze of funding for police. The paper says the Chancellor used the spending review on Wednesday to announce big boosts to the health and defence budgets, plus hundreds of billions of pounds in capital investment to build new homes, transport links and green energy projects.
This headline uses assertive, absolute language—“now inevitable”—to frame tax rises as unavoidable and directly blame Reeves’ £2trn spending. By linking the large figure with personal attribution, it personalises responsibility and stokes fiscal anxiety. It’s a classic example of framing to provoke concern over economic stewardship.
The Independent says the chancellor chose “national renewal” when announcing a £39bn boost for social housing, £29bn for NHS and £11bn for defence. In her long-awaited spending review, the chancellor also promised to save £1bn by closing all asylum hotels as she took aim at Nigel Farage and Reform.
This headline contrasts a sceptical viewpoint (“Spend now, tax later?”) with Reeves’ rebuttal, presenting her as defensive or needing to justify her plans. The rhetorical question implies doubt about her fiscal approach, while “insists” subtly questions her credibility. It’s a common tactic to frame a politician as on the back foot.
Copyright WTX News 2025