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 groups

The 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 charity

There 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 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.

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%.

YouGov says only 11% of people, and only 22% of people who voted leave, think it has been a success.

And it says that 55% of people are in favour of rejoining.

Here is the PA Media story on PMQs.

Keir Starmer has claimed the Conservatives are the “coalition of blockers” as he defended his government’s growth proposals and employment law reforms.

The prime minister highlighted opposition to airport expansion and a rail project from Tory frontbenchers, which prompted opposition leader Kemi Badenoch to brand Labour “hypocrites” for raising their own objections in the past.

Starmer, who dubbed the government the “coalition of builders”, was also urged by Badenoch to drop a series of measures contained in the employment rights bill because they “fail his growth test”.

After Badenoch told Starmer to “stop being a lawyer and start being a leader”, Starmer replied: “We know she is not a lawyer, she is clearly not a leader, if she keeps on like this, she is going to be the next lettuce.”

His remark was a nod to Liz Truss’s 49-day long premiership, which saw the Daily Star live-stream a lettuce to see if it would last longer than her tenure in No 10.

The bill raised at PMQs includes measures to introduce day-one protections from unfair dismissals, make changes to sick pay and ensures guaranteed hours on zero-hours contracts.

Badenoch said the government has “embraced a series of Conservative policies” before urging Starmer to “drop” the bill as it “clearly fails the prime minister’s growth test”, adding Whitehall analysis suggests it will cost businesses £5bn a year.

Starmer said the government was “not taking lectures” from the Conservatives.

Badenoch said the legislation would make it “harder for business to hire new employees”, adding: “This isn’t an employment bill. It’s an unemployment bill. Given these clauses, will he drop his bill and show that he is not anti-growth?”

Starmer replied: “We believe in giving people proper dignity and protection at work. That’s why we’re proud of our record of supporting workers. They consistently vote against any protection for working people.”

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, Eleni Courea reports.

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.

Kemi Badenoch has not yet found a route to winning at PMQs, and she did not manage it today. There was a brief moment, at the start of her second question, that summed up her predicament.

Badenoch accused Starmer of not answering her point about the employment rights bill “because he doesn’t know about it” and she went on to say that last week Starmer “misled the house” because he told her that an amendment to the schools bill had been tabled (addressing a potential flaw in the schools bill Badenoch was highlighting) – when in fact the amendment hadn’t been tabled, just announced. (When colleagues last checked, it still had not been tabled.) But the Speaker, Lindsay Hoyle intervened, because MPs are not allowed to accuse each other of deliberately misleading the house, and so Badenoch had to reword her point.

It was not a major gaffe. But it came across as a setback, indicative of inexperience – even though what Badenoch was saying was 100% correct. Similarly, her overall line of attack today had some substance and merit. Yet, for various reason, it had little cut-through.

On the plus side, for the second week in a row, Badenoch chose to raise a mainstream, important policy issued and devote all her questions to thrashing it out in some detail. This is a welcome relief from the ‘What’s Elon been tweeting about overnight?’ approach (and probably a more reliable guide to electoral recovery – although, these days, God knows?)

Badenoch focused on the employment rights bill, and she argued that, because businesses say it will cost them £5bn a year, it would be bad for growth. She also claimed, in particular, that it did not pass Starmer’s own growth test.

Yesterday, the prime minister set his growth test. He said, ‘if a policy is good for growth, the answer is yes. If it’s not, the answer is no’. This morning the chancellor embraced a series of Conservative policies, although many are welcome, they will take years to deliver …

Let’s look at the employment bill. The government’s own figures say it will cost businesses £5bn a year. It clearly fails the prime minister’s growth test. Will he drop it?

The government argues in its impact assessment that the costs to business of the bill (relatively easy to quantify) are justified by the benefits (which are harder to measure), and this was the argument that Starmer deployed.

We believe in giving people proper dignity and protection at work. That’s why we’re proud of our record of supporting workers. They consistently vote against any protection for working people.

We are driving growth on behalf of working people. Good work rights are consistent with growth, every good business knows that.

But it was not just the argument that gave him the edge. For once, he sounded genuinely passionate. He engaged directly with what Badenoch was saying, and he answered her bluntly and powerfully. (“Will he drop these measures from the bill?” – “No, I think they are good for workers and good for growth.”) Maybe it was being accused of being dishonest early, maybe employment rights engages his innate leftism more than other topics, but for whatever reason he sounded effective.

Starmer was also a bit more withering than usual about the Tories’ record, which worked well today. This is a factor that gives him a structural advantage at PMQs – and will continue to do so for a long period of time.

But there was one other moment that helped Starmer this week. For some time now Badenoch has been using the “lawyer, not a leader” jibe against Starmer. It is not a fair criticism (nobody could have crushed Corbynism in the Labour party, as Starmer did, without strong leadership qualities), but it is a neat line, it’s memorable and it probably does encapsulate a lot of the negativity people feel about Starmer’s mangerialism.

Referring to the employment rights bill, Badenoch said:

This bill is terrible for business, but it is great employment for lawyers. I know the prime minister loves the legal profession, but he needs to stop being a lawyer and start being a leader.

And Starmer replied:

I understand she likes straight talking, she is talking absolutely nonsense. She knows that anybody that understands anything about the bill or any employment law will know you can’t start in the morning and go to the tribunal in the afternoon.

Now, we know she is not a lawyer, she is clearly not a leader, if she keeps on like this, she is going to be the next lettuce.

It is not the wittiest line ever. But the Commons at noon on a Wednesday is a cheap audience (or at least, for Starmer, 401 of them are) and in PMQs terms that was a decisive blow.

Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, says on a recent visit to a hospital in Barnstable, he was told it was like a “ticking time bomb”. It needed 12 operating theatres, but only has four. And rebuilding plans have been delayed.

Starmer says people are right to feel angry and betrayed by the last government. It had a hospital rebuilding programme, but those hospitals were never going to be built.

Davey says he will keep coming back to hospitals and social care.

The chancellor says the UK needs to go further and faster on growth, he says. He says the Lib Dems agree. So will the PM join the customs union? When he goes to Brussels on Monday, will he open talks on joing the PEM, the Europe-wide customs scheme?

Starmer says the government has clear red lines on the customs union and the single market.

He does not address the question about PEM.

Keir Starmer is getting ready for PMQs. Here is the list of MPs down to ask him a question.

The Green party has described the decision to approve a new runway at Heathrow as “the most irresponsible announcement from any government” since the Liz Truss mini-budget. This is from the Green MP Siân Berry.

The chancellor talked about the ‘costs of irresponsibility’ but expanding airports in the face of a climate emergency is the most irresponsible announcement from any government I have seen since the Liz Truss budget.

The chancellor also talked about ‘the sights and sounds of the future’, but these will be dismal for millions if the government doesn’t take the action the UK has promised to cut carbon. We are already seeing the impact of climate breakdown on extreme weather and this will only get worse if ministers remain distracted by the lobbying of the most wasteful form of transport.

We are also expecting formal planning decisions from ministers on Gatwick and Luton airport expansion, which the Chancellor pre-empted today. Giving these permissions in the month before vital new advice arrives from the Climate Change Committee, is nothing short of reckless.

Q: [From Daniel Martin from the Telegraph] Can you rule out introducing tax and spending measures in the spring statement? You might be missing your fiscal rules by then.

Reeves says that is two months away. She won’t give a running forecast. A lot can change, she says.

But she says the fiscal rules are non-negotiable.

I am not going to write five years’ worth of budgets in the first six months of office, but that was a once-in-a-generation budget to fix the inheritance and to draw a line under the economic and fiscal mismanagement of the Conservatives.

Reeves is now talking about Heathrow.

The question of whether to give Heathrow, our only hub airport, a third runway has run on for decades.

The last full length runway in Britain was built in the 1940s no progress in 80 years.

Why is this so damaging? It’s because Heathrow is at the heart of the UK’s openness as a country. It connects us to emerging markets all over the world, opening up new opportunities for growth.

Around three quarters of all long haul flights in the UK go from Heathrow. Over 60 per cent of UK air freight comes through Heathrow, and about 15 million business travelers used Heathrow in 2023.

But for decades, its growth has been constrained. Successive studies have shown that this really matters for our economy. According to the most recent study from Frontier Economics, a third runway could increase potential GDP by 0.43% by 2050. Over half, 60% of that boost would go to areas outside of London and the south-east.

She criticises the last government for not acting to ensure a third runway was built.

So I can confirm today that this government supports a third runway at Heathrow and is inviting proposals to be brought forward by the summer.

We will then take forward a full assessment through the airport National Policy Statement. This will ensure that the project is value for money, and our clear expectation is that any associated surface transport costs will be financed through private funding, and it will ensure that a third runway is delivered in line with our legal, environmental and climate objectives.

Reeves says the government is supporting the redevelopment of Old Trafford in Manchester.

And there is the first mention of an airport – but it’s not Heathrow.

The last government stood by as Doncaster Sheffield airport was closed by its owner despite the overwhelming support for it to stay open …

So I can announce today that we will work with Doncaster council and the mayor of South Yorkshire, Oliver Coppard, to support their efforts to recreate South Yorkshire airport city as a thriving regional airport.

Reeves is now talking about the planning and infrastructure bill.

As Keir Starmer has done, she criticises the rules that led to HS2 spending £100m on a bat tunnel.

The problems in our economy, the lack of bold reform that we have seen over decades, can be summed up by £100m pounds bat tunnel built for HS2 – the type of decision that has made delivering major infrastructure in our country far too expensive.

So we are reducing the environmental requirements placed on developers when they pay into a nature restoration fund that we have created so they can focus on getting things built – and stop worrying about the bats and the newts – to build a new infrastructure like nuclear power plants, train lines and wind farms more quickly.

Reeves says the government will reform welfare. That means “looking at areas that have been ducked for too long, like the rising cost of health and disability benefits”.

She says Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, will set out plans for reform ahead of the spring statement (scheduled for 26 March).

Rachel Reeves is speaking now.

She starts by saying promoting growth is about “making working people better off”.

Without economic growth, we cannot improve the living standards of ordinary working people, because growth isn’t simply about lines on a graph. It’s about the pounds in people’s pockets, the vibrancy of our high streets and the thriving businesses that create wealth, jobs and new opportunities for us, for our children and grandchildren.

We will have succeeded in our mission when working people are better off.

The Treasury’s overnight briefing on Rachel Reeves’ speech focused on plans to develop “the Oxford-Cambridge Growth Corridor”. Here is an extract from the press notice with details of what is being proposed. I’ll post it here at length because it is not available yet online.

The Environment Agency has lifted its objections to a new development around Cambridge that could unlock 4,500 new homes and associated community spaces such as schools and leisure facilities as well as office and laboratory space in Cambridge City Centre. This was only possible as a result of the government working closely with councils and regulators to find creative solutions to unlock growth and address environmental pressures.

That the government has agreed for water companies to unlock £7.9bn investment for the next 5 years to improve our water infrastructure and provide a foundation for growth. This includes nine new reservoirs, such as the new Fens Reservoir serving Cambridge and the Abingdon Reservoir near Oxford.

Confirming funding towards better transport links in the region including funding for East-West Rail, with new services between Oxford and Milton Keynes this year and upgrading the A428 to reduce journey times between Milton Keynes and Cambridge.

Prioritisation of a new Cambridge Cancer Research Hospital as part of the New Hospitals Programme bringing together Cambridge University, Addenbrookes Hospital and Cancer Research UK.

Support for the development of new and expanded communities in the Oxford-Cambridge Growth Corridor and a new East Coast Mainline station in Tempsford, to expand the region’s economy.

That she welcomes Cambridge University’s proposal for a new large scale innovation hub in the city centre. As the world’s leading science and tech cluster by intensity, Cambridge will play a crucial part in the government’s modern Industrial Strategy.

A new Growth Commission for Oxford, inspired by the Cambridge model, to review how best we can unlock and accelerate nationally significant growth for the city and surrounding area.

Appointment of Sir Patrick Vallance as Oxford-Cambridge Growth Corridor Champion to provide senior leadership to ensure the Government’s ambitions are delivered.

The briefing includes more specific detail about transport. This is what it says about rail services.

The chancellor today announced that delivery of a new East Coast Mainline station in Tempsford will be accelerated by 3-5 years. The station will link services directly to London, with services in under an hour. It will eventually also be an interchange with the East West Rail station.

And this is what it says about the A428.

The A428 (Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet) scheme will improve journeys between Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge. The scheme will see a new 10-mile dual carriageway delivered, as well as three grade separated junctions, three tier at Black Cat roundabout (A1/A421) and two tier at Cambridge Road (B1428) and Caxton Gibbet (A428/A1198) junctions, respectively. Main construction began in December 2023 and the road is expected to open in 2027.

Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, told the Today programme that he did not agree with Dale Vince about Heathrow expansion being incompatible with climate commitments. Reynolds told the programe:

There is no tension between being ambitious on climate and being ambitious on growth.

We need to decarbonise aviation come what may. There are jobs in that. There is a whole industry in sustainable aviation fuel which we are committed to.

“ut the business case, the economic case for aviation, for a services led economy, for the fact that airports are our major ports in terms of goods entering the country, is very strong indeed.

This country has attracted more investment in renewables than other comparable European countries.

We need to be ambitious both for decarbonisation and for the economy and the two things go hand in hand.

The Labour donor and energy boss Dale Vince ridiculed the Rachel Reeves’ expected support in her speech for a third runway at Heathrow, calling the move “an illusion of growth”.

Vince told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme:

I think it’s a mistake. Actually, I think it’s an illusion of growth.

It’ll take 10 years to build a runway, cost maybe £50bn. It’ll create the wrong kind of growth – we’ll be exporting tourism money abroad, creating a bigger imbalance than we already have, and it will come at the expense of our carbon-cutting effort.

Reflecting on the government’s green agenda he said:

It’s the wrong kind of growth ... we can have growth but we shouldn’t try to get it in these ways that increase our carbon emissions.

We’ve got to decarbonise energy, transport and food, and at the moment we’re on course to do energy, and we won’t do that with this Heathrow expansion, which is a big mistake.

Good morning. Rachel Reeves is today delivering a speech on growth that has been subject to almost as much advance pitch-rolling and pre-briefing as you get for a budget. And no wonder, because she is hoping that it will do almost as much work, politically at least, as a budget. Although she has not had to unravel the mega, £25bn tax raising package she announced in October, it suppressed business confidence more than she expected and there now seems to be a Westminster consensus that she included a bit too much gloom powder in the cake mix.

Here is our preview of what Reeves will say today, by Pippa Crerar and Heather Stewart.

If you judge a speech by the advance headlines (and, yes, that is exactly how some people in government do judge these things), the pre-speech part of the exercise has gone well.

Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, has been giving interviews this morning and on BBC Breakfast he defended the plan to green-light airport expansion, including a third runway at Heathrow.

I want people to know that things that have been too difficult in the past will be focused on, will be changed, will be delivered on, by this government.

It’s not just about aviation expansion, there’s a whole range of things.”

We’re not going to have endless judicial reviews effectively try to second-guess democratically-elected decisions from the elected government of the day. We will follow process, but that process has got to be one that can deliver the things.

We simply cannot afford to say we don’t build reservoirs any more, we don’t build railways, we don’t build runways. That’s not good enough, we will be left behind.

Keir Starmer has delivered a similar message in an article for the Times. This is what he says about why the government is committed to deregulation.

There is a morass of regulation that effectively bans billions of pounds more of investment from flowing into Britain. Thickets of red tape that, for all the Tories talked a good game, was allowed to spread through the British economy like Japanese knotweed. Our pledge today is that this government will do what they could not. We will kick down the barriers to building, clear out the regulatory weeds and allow a new era of British growth to bloom.

This may seem like an unusual goal for Labour politicians. But deregulation is now essential for realising Labour ambitions in this era — a crucial component of my Plan for Change. If we don’t deregulate the planning system, then we cannot spread the security of home ownership to the next generation. If we don’t simplify environmental protections, then we cannot decarbonise our electricity grid and generate cheaper, homegrown energy. And if we don’t curb regulator overreach, then we won’t unlock the investment needed for a more prosperous future.

Labour politicians also know that, whatever they say on policy, the only dead cert way of impressing a rightwing paper is by invoking Margaret Thatcher, and so in his article Starmer has a go at that too (explaining the splash headline above).

In the 1980s, the Thatcher government deregulated finance capital. In the New Labour era, globalisation increased the opportunities for trade. This is our equivalent.

Here is the agenda for the day.

9.30am: Sir Peter Schofield, permanent secretary at the Department for Work and Pensions, gives evidence to the Commons work and pensions committee.

9.30am: Amanda Pritchard, NHS England’s chief executive, and other officials give evidence to the Commons health committee.

10am: Rachel Reeves delivers her speech on growth.

Noon: Keir Starmer faces Kemi Badenoch at PMQs.

2.30pm: Andrew Bailey, governor of the Bank of England, gives evidence to the Commons Treasury committee.

If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.

If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.

I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.