UK Spring Statement

The UK’s fiscal 'Spring Statement' is a big political talking point but its economic and financial implications are inconsequential. There may be some sectoral effects, but these will have been largely anticipated and priced-in long since (such as the widely-publicised extra defence spending from 2027/8). The statement will have no noticeable impact on the UK’s economic and financial performance. Global investment portfolios should remain as they are.

The bottom line – not easy to find, see below – is that despite the acres of newsprint and pixels devoted to the Statement already, the UK government’s fiscal stance in each of the next three financial years will change by less than 0.1% of GDP in each year, and in the direction (if such small changes have direction) of looser, not tighter, policy.

Only from 2028/9 does policy become more restrictive than it was (that is, policy changes make the government deficit smaller than it would have been), and even in 2029/30 the tightening amounts to less than a quarter of one percent of GDP. The politically contentious welfare cuts really start from 2028/29, and in 2029/30 amount to between 1% and 1.5% of total welfare spending, also less than a quarter of one percent of GDP.

The widely-reported change to 'fiscal headroom' is a bit bigger, at roughly half of one percent of GDP, but still hardly dramatic in the macro context. It refers to the gap in 2029/30 between what the government can borrow on current account, according to one of its self-imposed rules – see below – and what it seems likely to borrow. This headroom has less direct relevance to the economic outlook, which is shaped by total government activity (on capital as well as current account) in absolute terms, not relative to a benchmark.

The OBR’s growth forecasts have indeed fallen, but only in line with the consensus, and only for the short-term (2025 growth is projected at 1%, down from 2% in October). At the end of the forecast period the level of GDP is no different to what it had been projected to be in October, and despite the media onslaught of recent weeks the upward revision to the main debt ratio at the end of the period (0.7 percentage points of GDP, to 82.7%) is effectively a measurement error, angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin stuff. And as we note often, there is no medium-term (a period of time which lasts longer than a Truss administration) correlation between changes in government debt and the level of gilt yields anyway.

Again, we find ourselves wondering at the UK’s budgetary process. It must be one of the most open fiscal frameworks around, but instead of clarity, the result can be confusion and obfuscation. The OBR’s accompanying, invigilating report runs to 180 very full pages, with four different definitions of government debt, half a dozen different fiscal balances, and three fiscal 'rules' to monitor. It sees many many trees, but no wood. The spuriously-precise nuances in its many multi-year line item projections are in reality dwarfed by forecast uncertainty. The UK government – like its peers – will nonetheless probably be able to borrow what it needs without disturbing yields. The point is not how much it will borrow, but why. The German government has just felt able to transform its likely fiscal stance with barely a pamphlet in support.

Ready to begin your journey with us?

Speak to a Client Adviser in the UK or Switzerland

Past performance is not a guide to future performance and nothing in this article constitutes advice. Although the information and data herein are obtained from sources believed to be reliable, no representation or warranty, expressed or implied, is or will be made and, save in the case of fraud, no responsibility or liability is or will be accepted by Rothschild & Co Wealth Management UK Limited as to or in relation to the fairness, accuracy or completeness of this document or the information forming the basis of this document or for any reliance placed on this document by any person whatsoever. In particular, no representation or warranty is given as to the achievement or reasonableness of any future projections, targets, estimates or forecasts contained in this document. Furthermore, all opinions and data used in this document are subject to change without prior notice.

Read more Wealth Management UK articles

  • Trump II: FAQs

    Market Perspective

    In this Market Perspective we discuss the economic impact of Trump's second term, focusing on tariffs, inflation, and market volatility, while highlighting potential geopolitical shifts and the uncertain outlook for global growth and investment strategies.

  • Tariffs: Assessing initial manufacturing damage

    Strategy Blog

    President Trump's 2 April 2025 tariff announcement raised recession fears, with the manufacturing PMI dipping to 49.8. Although this is still ahead of the big 21st century setbacks - which saw PMI slump to below 40.

  • Trump Tariffs = earnings downgrades

    Strategy Blog

    The first-quarter US earnings season is solid but overshadowed by post-quarter ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs. Tariffs harm the economy, raising costs and reducing spending. Earnings estimates adjust slowly, and the impact may take time to reflect.

  • The dollar - down but not out

    Strategy Blog

    The dollar weakened despite initial strength from Trump’s trade policies. Skepticism about the administration’s credibility and potential shifts in global reserve currency status contributed to its decline. The dollar’s future remains uncertain amid ongoing economic and governance issues in Europe.

  • Don't just do something, stand there

    Strategy Blog

    The last 24 hours highlight the dangers of reactive investing. Despite market volatility from tariffs and trades, the S&P500 saw a major rally. Investors should remain cautious, sticking to their plans amid geopolitical uncertainties and market fluctuations.

  • Liberation Day - first thoughts

    Strategy Blog

    President Trump's proposed tariffs could raise US rates from 2-3%, to over 20%, the highest level since the 1930's. The tariffs might raise around 2% of US GDP in revenue, potentially making the difference between growth and recession.

Back to top