Remember “securonomics”? It was the buzzword Rachel Reeves gave to her economic philosophy back before the election.

The idea was that in the late 2020s, the old ideas about the way we run the economy would or should give way to a new model.

For a long time, we ignored where something was made and by whom and just ordered it in from the cheapest source. For a long time, we ignored the security consequences of where we got our energy from. The upshot of these assumptions was that over time, we allowed our manufacturing base to become hollowed out, unable to compete with cheap imports from China. We allowed our energy system to become ever more dependent on cheap Russian gas.

Money blog: Supermarket puts buying limit on new Lindt version of viral chocolate

The whole point of securonomics was that it matters where something is made and who owns it. And not just that – that revitalising manufacturing and energy could help revitalise “left-behind” corners of the economy, places like the Midlands and the North East.

Back when she came up with the coinage, Joe Biden was in power and was pumping billions of dollars into the US economy via the Inflation Reduction Act – a scheme designed to encourage green tech investment. So securonomics looked a little like the British version of Bidenomics.

That’s the key point: the “security” part of “securonomics” was mostly about energy security and supply chain security rather than about defence.

But when Rachel Reeves became chancellor, it looked for a period as if securonomics was dead on arrival. Most glaringly, Labour dramatically trimmed back the ambition and scale of its green investment plans.

But roll on a year or so, and we all know what happened next.

A new era

The Democrats lost, Donald Trump won, came into office and swiftly triggered a chain reaction that panicked everyone in Europe into investing more in defence. Today, much of the focus among investors is not on net zero but on defence.

All of which is to say, securonomics might be about to resurface, but in a markedly different guise. In the spring statement, I expect the chancellor to bring back this buzzword, but this time, the emphasis will not be on green tech but on something else: the defence sector.

Expect to hear about weapons

This time around, the chancellor will say securonomics 2.0, which is to say government investment in the defence sector will also bring an economic windfall, as old naval ports like Plymouth and Portsmouth see regeneration. This time, the focus will not be on solar and wind but on submarines and weapons.

Whether this rendition of securonomics is any more successful than the last remains to be seen. For the chancellor hardly has an enormous amount of money left to invest. While this week’s event is billed as a mere forecast update, the reality, when you take a step back, is more serious.

Read more:
What do you need to know about the spring statement

The chancellor will have to acknowledge that, without remedial action, she would have broken her fiscal rules. She will have to confirm significant changes to policy to rebuild the “headroom” against these rules. These will stop short of tax rises. Instead, the spending envelope in future years will be trimmed (think 1.1% or so spending increases rather than 1.3% or 1.4%). Those welfare reforms announced last week will bring in a bit of extra cash. And thanks to an accounting quirk, the decision (announced a few weeks ago) to shift development spending into defence will also give her a bit more space against her rules.

The austerity question

But even these changes will raise further awkward questions: is this or is this not austerity? Certainly, for some departments, that spending cut will involve further significant sacrifices. Are those benefits gains really achievable, and at what cost? And, most ominously, what if the chancellor has to come back to parliament in another six months and admit she’s broken her rules all over again?

The return of securonomics might be the theme she wants to focus on in the coming months – but that, too, depends on having money to invest – and the UK’s fiscal position looks as tight as ever.

A new boxing format which promises to eliminate often-controversial human judging decisions is in talks to raise $50m from heavyweight investors amid a broader shake-up in the funding and marketing of combat sports.

Sky News has learnt that STRIKR, which will use data-driven scoring by embedding sensors in combatants’ mouthguards and deploying technology from partners including Hawk-Eye, is in detailed talks with a large number of prospective backers about its first major funding round.

Sources said that scores of prospective investors were due to attend the first alpha test of STRIKR’s technology in action at an event to be held at The Outernet, an entertainment venue in Central London, this week.

People close to STRIKR’s development said its proprietary technology could track the exact trajectory, speed and force of punches.

This, they said, would open up huge betting market opportunities by enabling live in-play gambling, which they added would boost consumers’ engagement with the sport.

Among the architects of STRIKR are Greg Nugent, who oversaw the marketing of the London 2012 Olympic Games, and Michael Sutherland, former chief transformation officer at Real Madrid.

Stephen Duval, founder of sports and entertainment corporate finance group 23Capital and creator of Superset Tennis and Superfighter, is also among STRIKR’s co-founders.

Sources said the initial fundraising of about $50m would be followed by a larger capital-raising as the concept gained momentum.

Oakwell Advisory, a sports-focused corporate finance firm, is advising STRIKR on its talks with investors.

They added that STRIKR had the potential to “revolutionise” boxing in the same way that T20 had changed international cricket and that data-driven technology and smarter marketing had introduced Formula One motor racing to new audiences.

STRIKR is understood to work by using artificial intelligence combined with technology from Hawk-Eye Innovations and Protecht to generate more than 3,000 points of data about each punch thrown by a boxer.

By promising to eliminate the controversy which frequently accompanies the ringside verdicts of boxing judges, the new format is likely to claim that its advent will deliver a greater level of objectivity, integrity and transparency to one of the world’s most popular sports.

Responding to an enquiry from Sky News, Mr Duval said: “STRIKR is a new format of boxing that uses world-class technology to generate real-time objective scoring.

“It will create a different approach to fighting, using a new format, enabled by new technology, to engage the existing audience and attract a new one, to the benefit of the market overall.”

Mr Duval declined to comment on the identity of the investors in discussions with STRIKR, although people close to the fundraising said it had already secured indicative commitments encompassing a sizeable chunk of the $50m target.

The company also refused to be drawn on further details of commercial partnership discussions ahead of Monday’s test event.

STRIKR fights are expected to be free to watch, including on digital platforms such as YouTube, and will incorporate features such as personalised shopping and loyalty-based premium content.

The arrival of STRIKR – which is expected to include its maiden competitive events in the UK and US next year – will come at a time when investor interest in combat sports has surged amid an influx of funding from sovereign funds and other prominent pools of capital.

An official launch of the new format is said to be planned for May, with a series of exhibition events to showcase the technology later this year.

TKO Group, which owns UFC and WWE, this month struck a deal with the Saudi General Entertainment Authority to create a new international boxing league.

The Saudi government has already sanctioned an enormous investment in the sport through the creation of the Riyadh Season to secure the hosting of some of boxing’s most lucrative fights, including December’s world heavyweight title rematch between Oleksandr Usyk and Tyson Fury, which was won by the Ukrainian.

The civil service is to be told to cut more than £2bn from its budget as part of the government’s spending review.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves is expected to unveil spending cuts during the spring statement next week – and has reportedly ruled out tax rises.

The FDA union has said the government needs to be honest about the move, first reported by The Telegraph, and the “impact it will have on public services”.

Civil service departments will first have to reduce administrative budgets by 10%, which is expected to save £1.5bn a year by 2028-29.

The following year, the reduction should be 15%, the Cabinet Office will say – a saving of £2.2bn a year.

Administrative budgets include human resources, policy advice and office management, rather than frontline services.

The chancellor has also said she won’t be putting up taxes on Wednesday, telling The Sun On Sunday: “This is not a budget. We’re not going to be doing tax raising.”

Ms Reeves added: “We did have to put up some taxes on businesses and the wealthiest in the country in the budget [in the autumn].

“We will not be doing that in the spring statement next week.”

The chancellor has repeatedly insisted she won’t drop her fiscal rules which preclude borrowing to fund day-to-day spending.

:: Rachel Reeves, Mel Stride and Daisy Cooper appear on Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips from 8.30am

Civil service departments will receive instructions from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Pat McFadden in the coming week, The Telegraph reported.

“To deliver our Plan for Change we will reshape the state so it is fit for the future. We cannot stick to business as usual,” a Cabinet Office source said.

“By cutting administrative costs we can target resources at frontline services – with more teachers in classrooms, extra hospital appointments and police back on the beat.”

The move comes after the government last week revealed welfare cuts it believes will save £5bn a year by the end of the decade.

👉 Click here to listen to Electoral Dysfunction on your podcast app 👈

FDA general secretary Dave Penman said the union welcomed a move away from “crude headcount targets” but that the distinction between the back office and frontline is “artificial”.

“Elected governments are free to decide the size of the civil service they want, but cuts of this scale and speed will inevitably have an impact on what the civil service will be able to deliver for ministers and the country…

“The budgets being cut will, for many departments, involve the majority of their staff and the £1.5bn savings mentioned equates to nearly 10% of the salary bill for the entire civil service.”

Ministers need to set out what areas of work they are prepared to stop as part of spending plans, he said.

“The idea that cuts of this scale can be delivered by cutting HR and comms teams is for the birds. This plan will require ministers to be honest with the public and their civil servants about the impact this will have on public services.”

Read more:
Analysis: UK growth forecast set for major downgrade
What could be announced in the spring statement?
The spring statement – what you need to know

Mike Clancy, general secretary of the Prospect union, warned that “a cheaper civil service is not the same as a better civil service”.

“Prospect has consistently warned government against adopting arbitrary targets for civil service headcount cuts which are more about saving money than about genuine civil service reform.

“The government say they will not fall into this trap again. But this will require a proper assessment of what the civil service will and won’t do in future.”