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.
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.
More on Defence
Related Topics:
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.
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.
Police have made 200 arrests in London after crowds turned out for a Palestine Action demonstration – despite the group being banned.
Organisers Defend Our Juries said up to 700 people were at the event in Parliament Square and claimed police were preparing for the “largest mass arrest in their history”.
The group said those arrested included former Guantanamo Bay detainee Moazzam Begg, NHS workers, quakers and a blind wheelchair user.
The Metropolitan Police said a “significant number of people” were seen “displaying placards expressing support for Palestine Action, which is a proscribed group”.
“We have now made 200 arrests in Parliament Square this afternoon,” the force wrote in a post on X.
In an earlier post, it wrote: “While many of those remaining in the square are media and onlookers, there are still people holding placards supporting Palestine Action. Officers are steadily working through the crowd making further arrests.”
Image: An aerial view of Parliament Square
Image: Protesters write on placards for the Lift the Ban campaign rally on Saturday. Pic: PA
Legislation to proscribe Palestine Action came into force on 5 July, making it a criminal offence to show support for the organisation, carrying a prison sentence of up to 14 years.
Defend Our Juries announced the protest would go ahead earlier this week despite the ban, following several other similar demonstrations since the proscription last month.
On Saturday, a spokesperson for the group said that “Palestine Action and people holding cardboard signs present no danger to the public at large”.
Image: A woman is dragged away by police officers after attending the Palestine Action protest in Parliament Square. Pic: PA
Three people have been charged as a result of illegal Palestine Action activity.
Jeremy Shippam, 71, of West Sussex, Judit Murray, also 71, of Surrey, and Fiona Maclean, 53, of Hackney in east London, will appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 16 September.
Another march organised by the Palestine Coalition, which is a separate group, set off from Russell Square and assembled on Whitehall.
The Met Police said one person had been arrested there for showing a placard in support of the Palestine Action.
Image: A man is detained by police officers in Parliament Square. Pic: PA
Crowds had assembled in Parliament Square by 1pm, with people seen writing “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action” on placards.
Many remained silent while others sang pro-Palestine chants.
A Home Office spokesperson said in a previous statement: “The Home Secretary has been clear that the proscription of Palestine Action is not about Palestine, nor does it affect the freedom to protest on Palestinian rights.
“It only applies to the specific and narrow organisation whose activities do not reflect or represent the thousands of people across the country who continue to exercise their fundamental rights to protest on different issues.”
The ban faces a legal challenge in November after the High Court granted a full judicial review to Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori.
The Department for Work and Pensions will launch an independent review into its handling of prosecutions against Post Office staff, Sky News has learned.
About 100 prosecutions were carried out by the DWP between 2001 and 2006 during the Horizon IT scandal.
The “independent assurance review”, however, is yet to be commissioned and will not look at individual cases.
Hundreds of subpostmasters were wrongfully convicted of stealing by the Post Office between 1999 and 2015, due to the faulty Horizon IT system.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:55
What did we learn from the Post Office inquiry?
The DWP told Sky News they have “committed” to commissioning the review into prosecutions led by the department, where Post Office staff were investigated for “welfare-related fraud”.
They described cases as “complex investigations” which they said were “backed by evidence including filmed surveillance, stolen benefit books and witness statements”.
More from UK
They also added that “to date no documentation has been identified showing that Horizon data was essential to these prosecutions”.
The review will look at a period of time spanning 20 years covered by the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Act 2024, from September 1996 to December 2018.
The Horizon Act was effectively blanket exoneration legislation which automatically quashed Post Office convictions but did not include DWP or Capture-related prosecutions.
Image: Roger Allen
The family of Roger Allen, who was convicted in 2004 of stealing pension payments by the DWP and sentenced to six months in prison, are “frustrated” the review won’t look at his or other cases.
Mr Allen died in March last year, still trying to clear his name.
Keren Simpson, his daughter, describes the review as a “development” but a “fob off”.
“I think it’s just getting us off their backs,” she said, “I’ll believe it when I see it because they’re not taking any accountability.
“They’re not acknowledging anything. They’re denying everything.
“No one’s saying, look, we really need to dig in and have a look at all these cases to see if there’s the same pattern here.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:29
‘Everyday life was a struggle’ – former sub-postmistress
Mr Allen pleaded guilty to spare his wife – after his lawyer told him in a letter that there had been “an indication from the Crown that they may discontinue the proceedings against Mrs Allen were you minded to plead guilty”.
Despite the Criminal Cases Review Commission deciding Mr Allen had grounds to appeal against his conviction, it was upheld by the Court of Appeal in 2021.
The independent review will look at the “methodology and processes” used by the DWP, and the “thoroughness and adequacy” of efforts to obtain case documents.
The DWP say that the review won’t be commenting on individual cases or those that have been dismissed by the Court of Appeal.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
11:28
Post Office: The lost ‘Capture’ files
Potential reviewers will also be approached with experience “outside of the civil service”.
They will be asked to produce a report with recommendations for any further actions within six months of starting their review.
Lawyer Neil Hudgell, instructed by some of those prosecuted, described the review as “wholly inadequate”, saying the DWP “should not be marking its own homework.”
“Any involvement in the process of appointing reviewers undermines all confidence in the independence of the process,” he added.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:48
‘All we want is her name cleared’
He also criticised the DWP’s statement as “strikingly defensive and closed minded”.
“It cannot be anything approaching rigorous or robust without a proper case by case review of all affected cases, including those dismissed by the Court of Appeal.”
He said that where hundreds of convictions were quashed “at the stroke of a pen” a proper and “targeted” review is “the least these poor victims are owed.”
“At the moment there is a widespread feeling among the group that they have been “left behind and that is both legally and morally wrong.”
A Freedom of Information request to the Department of Work and Pensions by Sky News has also found that most cases they prosecuted involved encashment of stolen benefit payment order books.
In response to questions over how many prosecutions involved guilty pleas with no trial, the DWP said the information had been destroyed “in accordance with departmental records management practices” and in line with data protection.
A 15-year-old boy has been found guilty of the murder of Sheffield schoolboy Harvey Willgoose.
Harvey, also 15, was killed by a fellow student outside their school cafeteria in February this year.
His parents, Mark and Caroline Willgoose, have told Sky News that school knife crime is “a way of life for kids”.
The defendant, who cannot be named for legal reasons, had brought a 13cm hunting knife with him into All Saints Catholic High School, Sheffield, stabbing Harvey twice in the chest just a few minutes into the lunch break.
His defence told the court the defendant had “lost control”, stabbing Harvey after years of bullying and “an intense period of fear at school”.
Moments after stabbing Harvey, he told teachers, “you know I can’t control it” and “I’m not right in the head”.
Giving evidence, the boy told the court he had no recollection of the moment he killed Harvey, something the prosecution said was “a lie”.
They told the jury the schoolboy “wanted to show he was hard” and had become “obsessed” with weapons in the lead up to Harvey’s death, with photographs of him posing with knives found on his phone.
Chris Hartley, of the Crown Prosecution Service, expressed the organisation’s “huge sympathies” for Harvey’s family and friends.
“The CPS and South Yorkshire Police were able to prove that the defendant did not lose self-control but intended to deliberately attack 15-year-old Harvey,” he said in a statement after the verdict.
“We remind teenagers that there can be horrendous and serious consequences of carrying knives. It has been proven that if you carry these weapons, you are more likely to use them or be a victim of knife crime. You are putting yourself, other people and your future at risk. Please stop carrying knives and stop putting lives in danger.”
Image: Harvey Willgoose and his mother
Speaking to Sky News ahead of today’s verdict, Harvey’s mother, Caroline Willgoose, said she felt she had “led [her son] into the lion’s den”.
She said Harvey was a “school avoider” who had “anxiety” about going to school.
“We badgered Harvey into going to school but I don’t think people realise that there is a problem in all schools with knives,” says Mrs Willgoose.
“It’s a way of life now for kids, and it needs to stop.”
During the trial, it was revealed that the defendant had had previous violent outbursts at school, and, a few months before Harvey was stabbed, the school had called the police when the defendant’s mother contacted them to say she had found a weapon in her son’s bag at home.
Harvey’s parents told Sky News’ Katerina Vittozzi they feel that the school did not take previous knife-related incidents “seriously enough” and felt “100%” the outcome might have been different if they had.
The head of St Clare Catholic Multi Academy Trust – a group of schools including All Saints – also told Sky News Harvey’s death “was an unimaginable tragedy for all”.
Steve Davies said: “We think especially of Harvey’s family, loved ones and friends today. We cannot begin to imagine the immeasurable impact the loss of Harvey has had on them.
“Harvey was a much-loved, positive and outgoing pupil whose memory will be cherished by all who knew him. As a community, we have been devastated by his death, and we continue to think of him every day.”
He added: “Harvey’s death was an unimaginable tragedy for all, and one that understandably gives rise to a number of questions from his family and others.
“Now that the trial has finished, a number of investigations aimed at addressing and answering these questions will be able to proceed.
“We will engage fully and openly with them to help ensure every angle is considered and no key questions are left unresolved.”
Describing her son as “a character” who “never stopped smiling, never stopped singing”, Mrs Willgoose said she was now campaigning for “all schools and colleges” to use knife arches.
“I want people to go into schools and talk about the devastation of what knife crime does.”
In an emotional interview with Sky News’ Katerina Vittozzi, Mrs Willgoose said she felt her son was “put here for a reason” and “I can’t let go until I put things right for him”.
“There’s no winners when it comes to knife crime,” she said.
The defendant “has ruined his life, his parent have got an empty bed”, she added. “He’s got to live with this for the rest of his life.”
Harvey’s father, Mark Willgoose, said that his son had had “a short life, but a good life”.
“He crammed everything in, and you’ve just got to try and see the positives in that,” Mr Willgoose added.
“Whatever happens in court, it’ll never be justice. It’ll never be enough.
“I think we’ve just got to make sure Harvey’s death is not going to be in vain, and if whatever we do saves one life, then it’s been worth us doing it.”
This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.