here s ben chu from bbc verify with the context.y in her budget, so what does that mean and why does that matter? well, let's start with the existing borrowing rule, to have the national debt projected to four as a share of the economy between the fourth and fifth years of a rolling five year official forecast. here was the picture during the march budget byjeremy hunt, a very small projected fall in the fifth year, as you can see there. because the fall was so small, that meant essentially zero room for extra borrowing, but rachel reeves is, we understand, likely to use a different measure of the national debt, one that also takes into account more government financial assets, such as the student loans made by the state. so what is the significance of that? as you can see, it falls by more in the five years. the upshot is it would enable her to borrow more over the parliament to spend on capital infrastructure. so, what is that? it is things like new transport links, new schools and hospitals and also new energy schemes. she argues

here's ben chu, from bbc verify.s published yesterday alongside the budget and it is true, as the conservatives say, that it does not endorse in black and white that £22 billion figure, which has been cited by rachel reeves and many other government ministers. however, what it does say is that the 0br asked the treasury back in august to tell it what it didn't tell it in the preparations for that march budget about spending pressures. unexpected spending pressures. unexpected spending pressures. and the 0br says that the treasury told it that those spending pressures that it had not talked about of £9.5 billion a year in 2024 to 2025, the current fiscal year. so thatis the current fiscal year. so that is obvious the half of the £22 billion figure roughly the rachel reeves cited. but the 0br did also say this. that this analysis was not provided to the 0br at the time of the march budget, talking about the £9.5 billion figure. and it also said that had this information be made available, a materially differentjudgment

here's ben chu from bbc verify.he run—up to the budget about complaints from cabinet ministers about being forced to accept more spending cuts in their day—to—day budgets. we've been hearing in the run—up to the budget about complaints from cabinet ministers about being forced to accept more spending cuts in their day—to—day budgets. yet rachel reeves also says she will end austerity, which is taken to mean no more cuts in departments' budgets. so how do we reconcile these things, which seem to be somewhat contradictory? well, let's start with the context, first of all. this shows the department's day—to—day budgets, adjusted for inflation since 2010. so health is 38% higher. health has been a protected department. but look at transport — no higher today than it was 1a years ago. and justice, well, that's 14% lower. and communities and housing still almost 60% lower. these are so—called unprotected departments. we will have to wait to see the detail of their new spending settlements to understand what has been going

there is a promise of more investment in the nhs but pressure for other departments, here is ben chuhe will end aussiety which is taking to mean no more cuts in department budget, how do we reconcile these things which are contradickty? let us start with the context, this shows departments day—to—day budget, adjusted for inflation since 2010, so health is round 38% higher, health has been a protected department, look at transport, no higher today, than it was 14 years ago and justice, that is 14 percent lower and communities and housing still almost 60% lower, these are so—called unprotected departments, and we will have to wait to see the detail of their new spending settlements to understand what has been going on. it might be they have cuts in the short—term, that the promise of bigger day—to—day budgets later in the parliament. but it might also be that the chancellor has, as her predecessors did prioritised health spending, health spending is so large as a share of overall day—to—day spending, not far off half of the total in fact, that when it gets an increase it simply squeeze

so what is the reality, joining me is ben chu from bbc verify.llion figure. so, the obr review into _ billion figure. so, the obr review into this _ billion figure. so, the obr review into this very - billion figure. so, the obr i review into this very question was published yesterday alongside the budget and it is true as the conservatives say it doesn't endorse in black—and—white that £22 billion figure which has been

we've got the gang back together — ben chu and of course, nick watt.pent the day in the corridors of power in parliament. take us behind the scenes. you know what i am like on a day like this, i spend hours walking around the parliamentary estate and it's very difficult to avoid bumping into rachel reeves. she looked really happy and her team looked really happy and her team looked really happy and her team looked really happy because her budget had the most enthusiastic response from labour mps for a labour budget since the heyday of gordon brown. they stood up and waved their audit papers. they were really happy, because it was a labour budget. rachel reeves did to really significant things. she said no more austerity and i am going to balance the books. in recent years of those two have been mutually exclusive and rachel reeves said no, i am going to do the two. interestingly talking to one of the chancellor's really close cabinet colleagues they said the chancellor made a really big call to borrow and invest. this person was saying she could have b

alongside nick is ben chu bbc verify�*s policy correspondent. the old band is back together!, what are people saying to you? it is clearly a very grim mood around the cabinet table two weeks away from that budget. the sort of language i am hearing from cabinet sources are things like it is an effing nightmare. iam sources are things like it is an effing nightmare. i am also hearing language about how some cabinet ministers as it was put to me are being a little bit antsy. this all kicked off this afternoon when bloomberg reported that some cabinet ministers who have real concerns about what might be going on and what sort of because they might be facing wrote to the prime minister to raise their concerns. it looks like we have one united theme round the cabinet table which is, this is absolutely awful. then ministers split roughly into two groups. there are those who are saying it is a terrible challenge but we understand the pressure that the chancellor is under. then there are other ministers who are really concerned. it is not so difficult to work out who they are. they ar