logo
People on £10,000 to £96,000 tell us what they want from the Spending Review

People on £10,000 to £96,000 tell us what they want from the Spending Review

BBC News09-06-2025
This week the government will set out how much it is going to spend over the next four years on the public services that millions of people use every day.That includes the NHS, schools and public transport as well as welfare benefits, armed forces, energy projects and a whole range of other government spending.We asked a handful of readers, who had contacted the BBC via Your Voice, Your BBC News, what they would like to see in Wednesday's announcement.
'I earn £850 a month. Young people need better jobs'
Lewis Eager, 26, works two shifts a week in the on-demand delivery service for a supermarket in Southend-on-Sea, earning £850 a month. He lives with his parents who he pays £120 a month.He would like the Spending Review to include a plan to help young people like him find well-paid, full-time jobs.Lewis completed a business administration apprenticeship and an Open University degree, but says he cannot find full-time work.He estimates he has applied for more than 4,000 jobs without success."Getting knocked down all the time is horrible."Even entry-level jobs seem to require experience, he says.He sees a "looming crisis" among young people unable to get on the jobs ladder, and would like to see more money go into adult education."I live with my parents which I have nothing against, but I thought I would have achieved more by now," he says.
'We earn £52,500. We need more help with childcare'
Resheka Senior, 39, is a nursery nurse and her husband Marcus, 49, a school caretaker. Between them they take home more than £50,000 a year. But the couple say they are still struggling, particularly while Resheka is on maternity leave.When she goes back to work, Resheka says she won't be much better off because she will have to pay for childcare before and after school for her five-year-old and all day for the younger children, aged two and nine-months.They have debts that they are shuffling between credit cards and no prospect of moving out of their two-bedroom council flat in Woolwich, London."I don't want to stay at home. I've been working since I was 15 years old," says Resheka. But she would like to see more support for couples who are "making an honest living".She wants the government to pay for free breakfast and afterschool clubs or more free childcare on top of the 30 hours a week currently provided."It's not as if I'm saying I want benefits," she says. "We're putting back into the economy. We just need some help."
'We earn £71,000. The UK needs more apprenticeships'
Ollie Vass works for a nutritional supplement company, where he earns £31,000. His girlfriend Grace Sangster also 19 is on an apprenticeship scheme earning £40,000.They each started saving from the age of 13, earning money mowing lawns and working in restaurants.In April, with the help of a small inheritance and their Lifetime ISAs, the couple completed on a £360,000 two-bedroomed terraced house near Slough.Ollie and Grace would like to see more support for young people starting out, especially first-time buyers, and more apprenticeships.They also think the tax-free allowance, which has been frozen since 2021 should rise so that people on low wages can keep more of their earnings.Ollie also wants to see cheaper rail fares: "At the moment it's too expensive to use."
'We live on £700 a month. Benefits don't go far enough'
Leah Daniel, 23, and her partner are entitled to £800 a month in Universal Credit and the council pays £900 a month rent for the flat in Birmingham they share with their two-year old daughter.But currently around £100 a month is being deducted from their Universal Credit to pay for advances they took while homeless for a short time.Leah says they run out of money every month and have to borrow from friends and family, sometimes having to skip meals to make sure their daughter is fed.If the government decides to cut the welfare budget in the Spending Review, that would be "absolutely heartless", she says."It's one thing to make sure the country's growing and we aren't wasting money and people aren't taking advantage of the system. "It's another thing if you aren't giving more support to help people out of poverty and help them look for work," she says.Above all she and her partner want stable jobs so they can "build up their lives"."So many times we haven't eaten and we're worried about tomorrow," she says. "I just want this situation to change."
'I earn £96,000. Fruit and veg should be affordable for all'
As a GP and practice partner earning £96,000 a year, Dr Kirsty Rogerson says she is aware she is well-off.She and her husband, a hospital consultant, own their own house, and are putting some money aside to support their sons through university.But she sees plenty of people in her surgery in Sheffield who aren't so fortunate and face what she thinks are impossible choices.If she could choose one thing for the government to take action on it would be to subsidise fresh fruit and vegetables and make processed food more expensive."What [the government] shouldn't be doing is just tackling it at the other end with weight loss drugs," she says. "That's going to bankrupt the NHS."She would also like to see more money spent on public services."As a mother, I'd rather pay more tax and know my children were being well educated and there's a good healthcare system," says Dr Kirsty Rogerson. The same goes for the police."I'd rather go to bed each night knowing those things were there," she says.
'My pension is £20,000. The government should make savings'
Sylvia Cook, 72, used to sell accounting software, then published books about Greece, before she retired.Living on a pension of £20,000 means being careful with her outgoings, so she welcomes the government's u-turn on winter fuel payments as "a good decision, if a little late". The extra £200 "obviously eases things", she says.But in general she thinks that rather than increasing spending, the government should look at where it can save money."You can spend a lot of money and achieve nothing," she says. Instead she suggests changes to the tax system, efficiency savings across government and cutting perks for MPs and civil servants."There are so many inefficient things they haven't got the common sense to sort out."The health service is a case in point she says."Throwing more money at the NHS doesn't necessarily help if they don't sort that out," she says.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

JEFF PRESTRIDGE: Why is it so difficult to get our pensions in one place?
JEFF PRESTRIDGE: Why is it so difficult to get our pensions in one place?

Daily Mail​

time18 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

JEFF PRESTRIDGE: Why is it so difficult to get our pensions in one place?

Nothing is straightforward when it comes to pensions. Complexity rules. It's one of the reasons more than 40 per cent of working age people are not saving enough for retirement. Many just don't understand the myriad rules governing pension contributions, permitted tax breaks and how funds at retirement can be turned into hard cash. As a result, they desist from long-term saving when they should be embracing it. This complexity extends to when people attempt to put their pension affairs in good order. Long gone are the days when people retired after working all their life for one employer. Now, unlike our parents who had one works pension to see them through retirement, we have a mishmash of pensions – some good, others not fit for purpose. Some we may have forgotten about or struggle to track down. Research by financial services company Hargreaves Lansdown shows more than one in five people have lost track of pensions accumulated over a lifetime of work. To address this, consumer groups have repeatedly called for the setting up of an online dashboard, allowing people to see in one place key details on all of the pension plans they have accumulated over their working life. Such a dashboard would be a game-changer, allowing people to piece together their pension jigsaw – and enable them to make better choices when saving and at the point of retirement. Yet despite promises by previous governments to get it off the ground, it has yet to see the light of day. Although a quango called the Pensions Dashboards Programme has been tasked with delivering the scheme, the project trundles on at a snail's pace. Pensions minister Emma Reynolds says the Government is committed to getting a dashboard over the line. But I doubt it will be fully operational before the next General Election in 2029. In light of such slow progress, Labour should listen to those calling for new rules governing pension switches. Pension switching and consolidation of plans makes great sense for many savers, giving them greater control over their long-term finances and the opportunity to benefit from lower fund fees. It's not for everyone. Some older pensions can include valuable benefits that would be lost if transferred to another provider. Yet overall, it is good for consumers and should be hiccup-free. Sadly, it isn't. Many providers make life difficult for want-away customers by dragging out transfers over many weeks and sometimes months. Scandalous. PensionBee, a relatively new pension kid on the block, wants the Government to introduce a ten-day pension switching guarantee, backed by law. It would be similar to the seven-day current account switching service (CASS) launched 12 years ago to stop banks dilly-dallying on account transfer requests. CASS's data indicates that of the 11.9 million current account switches completed since 2013, 99.6 per cent have been within the required seven working days. PensionBee's Lisa Picardo says pension switching delays 'have real opportunity costs – hampering engagement, costing people real money, limiting their choices and undermining trust in the whole pensions system'. To prompt change, PensionBee has set up a petition calling for 'faster, electronic pension transfers'. Bafflingly, there's no specific mention of the ten-day switching guarantee, nor the compensation savers should (must) get if the guarantee is breached. And the petition's title – 'legislate to mandate offer of electronic pension transfers and higher standards' – reads like it has been dreamt up by an actuary who has spent too much time immersed in the complexities of pensions. I can only assume there is method in the madness. As I said at the start, nothing is straightforward when it comes to pensions. Find the petition at Cashless tills have invaded our shops Paying for goods with cash at a supermarket should be a given. But many stores are rapidly turning invasive self-checkout services into near cashless zones. Think 1963 horror film The Day Of The Triffids, about an invasion of carnivorous plants. For example, at Marks & Spencer's store at London Paddington (the railway station I commute into and from five days a week), there are only a handful among the phalanx of self-checkout terminals that now accept cash. Debra Morrison, chief executive of charity CLASP, based in my home town of Wokingham in Berkshire, is a passionate advocate for cash. CLASP provides invaluable support to people with learning difficulties, encouraging them to express themselves, participate in a wide range of events, and live more independently. Its work is enlightening. Debra says cash is vital for most CLASP members who need to budget carefully and don't use credit and debit cards. It is also key for the elderly and others who eschew other payment methods. Debra is backing an petition – find it online at – calling for an end to the discrimination of cash users at self-service checkouts. Financial inclusion is an imperative. I urge you to sign the petition. Shame on Barclays for axeing ANOTHER service I hadn't heard of Barclays' 'sterling home service' until a neighbour of my partner mentioned it a few days ago. The service, introduced during the 2020 lockdown, enables people to order cash and have it delivered to their home rather than trundle off in search of a cash machine or a Barclays branch still open (good luck there). It has been a godsend for Edna who was 90 a couple of weeks ago and is not as mobile as she once was. It has enabled her to pay cash for at-home care, food deliveries and other needs besides. Sadly for Edna and other elderly people, Barclays is withdrawing the service on October 9. It says it was only meant to be temporary – and given it is now only used by a 'very small number of customers' (its words, not mine), it must be given the chop. The bank says the Ednas of this world can still get cash in other ways: via an ATM, getting cashback at a retailer or by asking for an 'authorised user' to be added to their account who can get cash out for them. Interestingly, it didn't mention the other option: withdrawing cash over the counter at a local Barclays branch. I draw two conclusions from this. Either Barclays feels it has shut so many branches (1,236 since 2015) that such an option is not worth mentioning. In Edna's case, the local Barclays in Wokingham, Berkshire, shut two years ago – and is now an ugly, empty shell. Or, that the days of permitted big cash withdrawals over the counter at Barclays' branches are drawing to an end. PS: There is worrying evidence that banks and retailers are turning their backs on cheques. If you have had difficulties banking a cheque or making a payment by cheque, email me at

73 Holyrood fat cats paid over £100,000 as satisfaction with public services falls
73 Holyrood fat cats paid over £100,000 as satisfaction with public services falls

Daily Mail​

time18 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

73 Holyrood fat cats paid over £100,000 as satisfaction with public services falls

The number of Scots civil servants earning more than £100,000 a year has soared under the SNP, the Scottish Mail on Sunday can reveal. Taxpayers are footing the bill for a growing army of civil servants - many of whom are predominanty allowed to work from home - as satisfaction with public services plummets. Overall, the Scottish Government now employs an unprecedented 73 mandarins who are officially ranked as Senior Civil Service (SCS) - mostly heads of various departments and directorates. In total, this upper tier of civil servants now costs the public purse an astonishing £8.6m a year in wages, with the vast majority earning in excess of £110,000 - three times the Scottish average annual salary. Earlier this year the SNP administration's finance secretary Shona Robison slashed millions from the budgets for the NHS, mental health and transport, claiming Scotland was facing 'enormous and growing' financial pressure. Despite this, the number of senior civil servants employed to run the country has grown sharply - as has the cost. At the same time, the civil service has come under fire for its refusal to abandon 'working from home' and for a 'sick-note' culture in which government staff take far more days off than workers in the private sector. Critics have attacked the 'out of control' cost to taxpayers and accused the SNP Government of getting its priorities all wrong. Scottish Conservative spokesman for finance and local government Craig Hoy said: 'The civil service, and the cost of it, have ballooned out of control under the SNP's watch, and by far the biggest expansion has been in those on the highest salaries. 'When Scots are paying the UK's highest taxes, but seeing worsening services, there 's no excuse for fat-cat pay packages of this sort.' Callum McGoldrick, researcher at the TaxPayers' Alliance said: 'At a time when public services are clearly under pressure, it's hard to justify the steady growth in high-paid civil servants at the top of the Scottish government. 'With budgets being squeezed across the board, Scottish taxpayers will be asking whether ministers have got their priorities right. 'The focus should be on improving services for the public, not inflating the salaries bill in Holyrood.' The Scottish Government recently published its annual list of Senior Civil Service staff, reflecting the situation at the end of March. Overall there are now 73 SCS on a wage bill of totalling £8.6m. The number is higher than the 66 staff on six-figure sums last year, which had added up to a total wage bill of £7.5m. In comparison, there were 52 SCS on £100,000 in 2023, 38 in 2021 and just 14 as recently as 2018. The current list includes director generals of government departments - plus heads of directorates including Cladding Remediation, Covid Inquiry Response, Organisational Continuity and Heat In Buildings. The highest paid is Caroline Lamb, director general of the health department and head of the Scottish NHS, whose salary is listed between £205,000 and £209,000 a year. Four other staff are listed as earning over £150,000, including former Permanent Secretary JP Marks who took home £190,000 as the country's most senior civil servant before leaving in April to take up a new job as chief executive of tax agency HMRC. He was replaced by Joe Griffin, who in his former role as the Scottish Government's director general of strategy & external affairs earned £140,000 a year. The official responsible for the country's finances is director general of the Scottish Exchequer Alyson Stafford who takes home £160,000. The list shows a further nine civil servants earning between £120,000 and £150,000 a year. Most are director generals of departments including Communities, Corporate, Economy, Education & Justice, and Net Zero. Overall 45 officials earn between £110,000 and £120,000 a year - including the government's directors of Corporate Transformation, Digital, and Propriety & Ethics. Meanwhile the public are increasingly unhappy with the public services the government provides. A survey published earlier this year by research firm Ipsos shows almost three in four Scots (74 per cent) think public services in their local area have got worse in the last five years. Of those, 62 per cent believe the Scottish Government is mainly responsible for the deterioration. Half of Scots (51 per cent) say they are dissatisfied with the quality of health services, while 28 per cent are dissatisfied with the quality of primary and secondary education, and half (51 per cent) are dissatisfied with the quality of policing. The civil service has also been criticised for clinging to the working from home policies initially imposed in the wake of Covid. Since the pandemic in 2020, working from home or hybrid working has been the default option for many staff. New rules introduced to try and boost productivity mean that, from October, staff will have to turn up at the office at least two days a week. The figure is lower than the equivalent policy for civil servants working for the UK government in Whitehall, which states that civil servants must spend at least 60 per cent of their time working in the office. However the edict has sparked complaints from some Scottish civil servants about the cost of having commute more regularly to government offices in Edinburgh and Glasgow. Some have raised concerns about the environmental impact of driving themselves to work - while others have warned the order to return to the office is 'an attack on their human rights'. Separately it emerged in June that Scotland's civil servants last year took an average of 8.7 days off sick - the worst recorded rate of absence in the government's history, and more than double the rate across the private sector. Although levels of pay for SCS staff are reserved to Westminster, the size and hierarchy of the civil service in Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Government. Responding to the criticism levelled at it, the government argued that its senior civil servants brought valuable expertise - while also vowing to deliver 'optimum value' for taxpayers. A spokesperson said: 'Senior civil servants manage performance and delivery, and ensure the Scottish Government achieves its goals. They bring significant expertise and progress the government's plans for delivering on its Programme for Government. ' It also said its public service reform strategy will 'ensure every pound spent delivers optimum value' and will 'reduce the annual combined corporate costs of the government and Scotland's public bodies by £1 billion over five years'.

74 years on - and Britain is still struggling to balance the books
74 years on - and Britain is still struggling to balance the books

Daily Mail​

time18 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

74 years on - and Britain is still struggling to balance the books

The past often looms larger than the present as one grows older. So I was grateful to receive a letter from a loyal reader who found a newspaper cutting revealing the contents of the 1951-52 Budget. At the time I was still in my Silver Cross pram blissfully unaware of the privations of the nation. But as a financial journalist who has reported on Budgets since the mid-1970s, the news was depressingly familiar. It dated to the final days of the post-War Government. The occupant of No 11 seeking to balance the nation's books was Hugh Gaitskell. Hailing from the moderate wing of Labour, he was the Rachel Reeves of his time. Tax and spend were the order of the day, but the welfare state was still in its infancy and handouts on today's scale were a dream. Dominating the Budget was defence of the realm. On the eve of the Korean War, Britain was spending 8.5 per cent of national output on the military. That was sharply down on the peak during the Second World War. It puts in perspective Keir Starmer's pledge to devote 2.5 per cent of gross domestic product to defence by 2027 and the undertaking at the recent Nato summit to eventually raise this to 5 per cent of GDP. In contrast the big consumers of Government resources in 2025-26 are welfare, the NHS and education. Spending on these was minuscule, compared with arms, in 1951-52. A key similarity with today is that the UK of 74 years ago was up to its neck in borrowing, debt and interest payments. Defeating Hitler was the only goal that mattered for Winston Churchill's Cabinet and in 1951 the ratio of debt-to-GDP stood at a huge 200 per cent. Britain has suffered three successive shocks to the public finances this century. The global financial crisis, Covid and soaring energy bills after Russia's invasion of Ukraine have sent the national debt soaring to 100 per cent of annual output. But remarkably that is half the level of 1951. The cost of servicing all that debt – including war loans from the US, savings certificates and Government bonds – was also far higher then. The annual interest bill was £215 billion in today's money – almost twice the £126 billion cost of servicing the national debt today. Those urging Reeves to loosen her fiscal straitjacket may find solace in the 1951 deal. Britain was deep in debt but survived. Taxation then was a simpler affair. Dominated, as it is today, by income tax, it was boosted by a surtax on the wealthy. National Insurance, now worth £199 billion a year to the exchequer, was near invisible. The biggest change to the tax system came after Britain joined the EU in 1973. It brought the Revenue the gift of VAT, which this year is set to raise £214 billion, making it the second biggest revenue-raiser after income tax. In 1951, when consumer spending power was modest, purchase tax raised a miserable £310 million or £3.8 billion today. One ever-present element of Budgets is alcohol duty. A few pennies off a pint is still seen by No 11 as a way of soothing the troubles of working people. As long as they can find a pub that's still open after the Chancellor's latest tax raid.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store