Are rounding the Whitehall, there is a kind of joke, soon the government will “bolt on the rest of the bus with NHS and the army”.

It is not fun for ministers fighting cash to spend cash in their departments. In a few weeks, Chancellor Rachel Reeves will suggest that an internal source before the next general election described “the last big set of decisions”.

This is an open secret in Westminster to be found for billions of health and protection. But the Chancellor and his deputy, Darren Jones, are locked up with cabinet ministers to establish all government budgets by 2029.

Forget the rows on winter fuel or welfare payments, the review of the expenditure determines the conditions for everything. Excess than the spats on the spreadsheet, it is a series of arguments about whom the government is for.

Who wins and what loses will set the political terrain for the coming years. I have talked to about 20 ministers, advisors and internal sources what is going on behind the closed doors.

“It’s going to be ugly,” follows a whitehall source. If you are living on Mars, then the ministers have said, repeatedly, the government “has to live within its means”, and “difficult decisions”.

To say that some bits of government spending will be hacked back. The contradiction is that overall, the government is spending more – the increase in large tax in autumn means a huge investigation for public services.

And the Chancellor also changed the rules how much he can borrow to spend on long -term projects, known as “capital expenses”, giving him more than £ 100bn more than this time.

But because some types of expenses – such as health or defense – are obtained significant additional cash, there is a tight squeeze at day -to -day expense, which spends more or less everywhere. Despite the huge budget, a government source accepts, “there are services in real danger”.

Who, or then, are potential winners and losers? By late Friday night, more than half of government departments had reached a final agreement with the Treasury.

No one claims evidence of 10 “initial and rapid progress”. A member of the cabinet praises Reavs and Jones for “really trying to be ally”. This is not a universal scene.

“It is quite spicy,” says another source, with some acute stress, hardly surprising that billions at stake, and have political reputation to make or break.

A government internal source says that we have thousands of decisions with thousands, which are being literally being “line from line” with us.

But there is a thick rule of thumb. With day-to-day expenses, the treasury will be tight as a drum, but when it comes to capital expenses, relatively liberal. Hence cash will flow for new roads, power infrastructure, hospital buildings and jail building.

The government is likely to try to make headlines with those big tickets-an example of the expected approval of the new-sized nuclear power station is an example.

Over the next few days, such as warm up, you will hear announcements about investing in new kits for health, construction jobs for housing, and infrastructure of water.

The expenditure is likely to be reviewed after itself that sources are described as “Infrastructure Week”, which is a full range of plans.

A source said, “Capital budget is fine, it is day -day where there is a really difficult conversation”.

And this means that such departments whose budget is likely to feel heat, like police officers, to take care of weaker or primary schools every day.

There are several arguments made like political landmines, any of which can explode in Whitehall before review on June 11.

Even Downing Street has a victim for savings, which a source describes as “crazy”, at a time when “if you are concerned about delivery and grip, spend money in 10!”.

The council budget is stressed, decreasing after years while demand on them increases. There is uncertainty on cash for construction of affordable houses over the long term, and funds to help the deprived areas grow. There is a concern that the budget can be raided to insulate millions of houses.

There is a concern that it can be planned to improve the number of police and demonstrations and to reduce the violence against women and girls. And there is a conversation about whether just capping of rent is really for money.

“Money is so difficult that they are making big quarrels about small volumes,” says a formula.

Caping bus fare costs only £ 200m – penis when it comes to the overall government budget.

Another source tells me, “uses only one in six passengers in six – so for £ 200m that the money can work hard,” another source tells me, “but politics wrapped around it means that if you touch, it is a third rail”.

Under pressure, separate ministers and their teams are taking she who can be described as a very different approach diplomatically.

The slaved doors, whispering, and refused to take notes in meetings of a cabinet minister, and responded to “no” for every suggestion or comment made by the authorities.

The minister always wants more for his departments and when the money is tight, it is not surprising that the process is full.

In interaction with some sources, you can hear anxiety in their voices that impact decisions on services provided by the state may be.

A cabinet minister told me, “We are already against it – the main problem is that the money is very, very tight.”

But another said that some colleagues are “getting unreal where the country is”.

Some people in the government also say, “there is too much fat and garbage”, while suggesting some cuts, even reducing the headcount between civil service, which “is out of control”, is easy to find.

Adding the amount is the first part of the process. The second question is that all this fits into the story of an unpopular government.

Senior circles hope that reviews, with large infrastructure plans, can be used to build summer of good news, after several months of taking a pasting.

Raves’s deputy, Jones, want to create “Stories Not Spreadsheets” and regularly talk to groups of MPs about what is being made for their territory, evidence of what the government is doing, they can sell disappointed voters.

The difficult part, as a government sources suggest that “day-to-day expenses are what people notice … you don’t vote with long-term projects”.

Remember that it is day-to-day expenses, which is tight, long-term cash for capital which is likely to flow.

The source said, “There is a huge pressure to show something for this in three and a half years.”

You can fill a lot of pits before 2029. You cannot plan many power stations. There is a hunger in the government’s pockets why there is a need to save money, or, a source warns, “It can be another political party sitting there – a labor treasure must be an argument, and Rachel needs to set it”.

And trying to save cash faces two other realities. What happens to all of the Prime Minister’s “Missions”, with focus on health, defense and long -term projects – remember them?

A source says, “It is really difficult to see how the missions survive,”, even though those ambitions were made to define the entire view to the Sir Kir Stmper government.

And what about their alleged enthusiasm for improvement, to run the state again? Enthusiasts will argue that the time for cash shortage is the best reasoning for making big changes.

But as an experienced Whitehall Insider asks, “How do you avoid taking political speed out of everything, if most departments are managing the decline in the next few years? How do you maintain political pace in the world of arrow below?”

Changes that can save a lot of cash, and more significantly provide better services to voters over the long term, can spend money in the beginning.

Sign up for Wind with lara Every week the newspaper is emailed to achieve the insight and insiderggar stories, experts from Laura Kunsburg, directly to you.

In the coming weeks, you will tell government sources about the importance of review of this expenditure and say that it is derogatory that the conservatives have done full audit for years.

But the process is not always good politics. The review of modern expenses was imagined in an era by Gordon Brown when he wanted to flaunt his largacy.

The new labor had cash to printed, and reviews to review were big moments to show it. In contrast, Sir Kir’s labor faces delicate public finance.

Treasury sources argue, with clear arguments, that it is helpful to exclude long -term financial plans so that the departments and the public know what is coming.

Nevertheless there is a risk that the expenditure of expenditure reviews acts to highlight political partitions and cuts, rather than any plus of Downing Street’s decisions.

“I really can’t understand why they are doing all this,” An inner formula says to me, “Maybe it’s about saying, ‘Oh look, we are ruling’, but it’s just importing bad options in 10 and 11”.

The front page is already characteristic of the glow of unhappy, such as the gusts between Treasury and Angela Rener, who will be with us in the studio tomorrow, with conservative leader Kemi Badenoch.

Like many large political moments, spending reviews presents huge possible prize, and huge possible risks, as the real decisions being made will shape the services available to the public and the country’s clothes for the next few years.

But at the same time, money talks. The financial options that are being made right now will tell the political story of the government.

Top Picture Credit: Reuters, and PA / EPA – FEE / Shuttock

BBC industry The best analysis is home on the website and app, with the latest approach that challenges beliefs and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we also demonstrate thought-respective materials from BBC sounds and iPlayer. You can send us your feedback on Inspth Section by clicking on the button below.