IN POLITICS, one should never over-promise and then under-deliver. At the same time, overall policy should be grounded in something more than wishful thinking. It is highly regrettable that the Chancellor made both these errors in delivering her Spring Statement.

Before the statement, all the talk was of enormous sums that would become available for desperately needed investment. At the same time, there was a strong campaign to refute any idea that the government was pursuing yet another round in the failed austerity experiment of its predecessors.

In the event, both were untrue. The actual new investment is extremely small and is mostly directed towards military and security investment, which is a completely wasteful and dangerous diversion of resources. A somewhat larger sum is planned to be “saved” by yet further attacks on welfare.

In effect, more spending on the military is being paid for by more attacks on the vulnerable, the sick and disabled people.

The Treasury has itemised the sums which illustrate these dangerously wrong priorities. By 2029-30, they project that the annual total of capital investment will have increased by £4.6 billion. But most of this does not properly fall into the category of investment at all, because it is military spending. You cannot produce something else from bombs, bullets and missiles.

Once military and security funding are excluded, real new productive investment amounts to less than £1.9bn at the end of this parliament. It does not qualify as investment. In terms of impact on the economy or living standards, it is a trivial amount.

So, how then can ministers talk so complacently about the vast amounts of money that will be flowing into key areas of the economy? A clue is to be found in the Treasury’s own section of the statement dealing with housing.

Housing investment has been woefully inadequate in this country for decades. Essentially, since Thatcher, the public sector vacated the task of homebuilding almost completely, and the private sector has not filled the gap. Far from it.

So, any new public-sector investment would be extremely welcome. Except that the Treasury will not be providing any. In its own words, “Planning reforms are set to have the biggest positive growth effect that the Office for Budget Responsibility has reflected in its forecast for a policy with no fiscal cost.”

Put simply, there will be almost no net new public-sector investment at all. Instead, it is promised that there will be a positive impact on demand for housing from growth. This is the same wasteful military spending already identified. But there is no shortage of demand for housing in this country. There is a massive shortage of supply; the construction of new homes. The government hopes its reforms to planning, which allegedly stand in the way of the private sector, will also help.

There is no evidence for any of this hope, but this is what government projections for a massive housebuilding programme rest on, the biggest in our history, according to the Treasury statement.

It is charitable to call this wishful thinking. It informs all aspects of the government’s supposed plans to invest our way to economic recovery.

The one exception to this is spending on the NHS. Here, there is real growth to the end of this Parliament. But it is set at half the average annual growth rate of spending on the NHS since its inception. The reason is not because those governments lavished money on the NHS. Far from it. The Tories have been in government for the vast majority of that period.

But until austerity began in 2010, governments usually ended up spending what was necessary to avoid deterioration in the NHS, which turns out to be at least 4 per cent a year on average. This is because as the British population grows, it ages, and there is a degree of inflation in health, which is separate from and usually higher than the general economy.

Ministers are providing growth in NHS spending, so these are not cuts. But it is insufficient to prevent deterioration, especially as piecemeal privatisation continues. Not cuts for the NHS, but definitely austerity.

The Spring Statement deepened austerity. It provided none of the investment needed for economic recovery. It cut welfare to pay for it.

The big winners were arms manufacturers. This will not boost growth or prosperity in this country. But it is likely to make us become more involved in the military adventures of the US. You would think that, after the Iraq war (as well as the flight from Afghanistan and the destruction of Libya) that British prime ministers might become more cautious about treading down that path once more.

Yet, even with Trump in the White House, our Prime Minister seems to believe that recklessness in foreign policy is now a wise course. In truth, although European leaders suggest that they are standing up to Trump, they are completely capitulating to him.

On the stump for the 2024 presidential election, Trump repeatedly declared he would make other Nato members pay much more into the US-dominated alliance. That has been his policy in office, too and is exactly what European leaders are now doing. This is also true of Keir Starmer.

Military spending is the only significant area of government spending which is seeing any significant rise in government capital spending. It aligns with Trump’s policy and begins to meet his demands. But we know that he will come back for more. There is already talk of doubling military spending as a proportion of GDP to 5 per cent.

Now, and in the future, that can only come from cutting spending elsewhere. Of course, if the economy were booming, then increases in welfare, in spending on public services, in genuine public investment and even increases in military spending could all take place simultaneously. But no-one is suggesting a boom is likely or even possible.

In reality, the rise in military spending is only possible by restraining spending on public services and cutting welfare. This increased military budget is being paid for by sick and disabled people. The economy will not get the public investment it needs and living standards and public services will both remain constrained. These choices are morally, politically and economically wrong.

Diane Abbott is Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington.