In place of chaos, I choose stability.

In place of decline, I choose investments.

In place of pessimism, division and defeatism, I choose national renewal.

Welcome to political fix from the Financial Times with me, Miranda Green.

You just heard there an unusually buoyant and bullish Rachel Reeves.

On Wednesday, the Chancellor revealed her long-awaited three-year spending review.

Abandoning the glum bucket tones of previous set-piece speeches to the Commons,

she set out both the day-to-day departmental spending for

this Parliament and capital budgets until 2030. So the political priorities have been set,

defence and security, the health service and economic growth. But it didn't take long,

less than 24 hours for the new tone of dynamism and can-do to be punctured. The numbers are disappointing, but monthly GDP numbers are particularly volatile.

I think we also all know that April was a challenging month.

That was the Chancellor again, attempting to downplay April's growth figures,

which unfortunately for her dropped the morning after.

Here to discuss this rollercoaster of a week, both the political hopes and the economic realities. I'm joined by my

colleagues Stephen. Hi, Stephen. Hi, Miranda. Jim Pickard. Hi, Miranda. And the FD's economics

commentator, Chris Giles. Hi, Chris. Hi, Miranda.

So Chris is here to help us dig into how the details of the Reeves plan might affect the economy,

but first for all three of you, there are definitely some cabinet members with big grins on their faces,

it's fair to say. Who are the real winners or weeping losers from the week?

So my loser is actually Angela Rainer, perhaps surprisingly, because all the headlines in the lead-ups of the spending review talked about this huge £39 billion package for affordable housing, which is double on an annual basis,

what has happened in the last five years. But in the small print, it took us long time to work this out.

...