Following the Chancellor’s Spring Statement, Atticus Partners convened a panel of leading voices to examine its economic and political implications. The discussion brought together experts from across politics, economics, and public opinion to explore what the announcement signalled for government priorities and how it might resonate with voters and markets alike.
The panel included Dame Siobhain McDonagh MP (Labour, Treasury Committee) Joe Twyman (Deltapoll), Seamus Nevin (Make UK), and Mike Buckley (Atticus Partners). The discussion centred around several key policy questions.
How is the public likely to respond to the Spring Statement?
Public perception, according to polling expert Joe Twyman, will hinge less on technical detail and more on whether voters believe the government is competent, fair, and effective. He noted that while governments may claim to have brought inflation “under control,” this rarely reassures the public if prices remain high. The disconnect between economic messaging and lived experience continues to be a challenge.
There was broad consensus that economic credibility will be a decisive factor in the next election. Voters are increasingly concerned with outcomes — lower living costs, fair taxation, and reliable public services — rather than specific policy mechanisms.
What approach is being taken to public spending and taxation?
Dame Siobhain McDonagh defended Labour’s approach as fiscally responsible, particularly in difficult economic conditions. She emphasised the need to ensure taxpayers’ money is spent efficiently, aligning with the broader political objective of reassuring both the public and financial markets.
Seamus Nevin described the current fiscal environment as particularly constrained, calling for a clearer long-term industrial strategy to guide spending. He also highlighted the need to improve the efficiency of government support — particularly where funding touches skills, infrastructure, and productivity.
What role does welfare reform play in the government’s strategy?
Welfare reform emerged as a cross-cutting theme. McDonagh supported measures to reduce long-term dependency and encourage people into work — while reaffirming Labour’s values around fairness and opportunity. Buckley agreed that reform was needed, especially given the high number of people currently on benefits but stressed the importance of designing changes that do not undermine social protections.
Twyman added that while welfare reform often polls well, there’s limited agreement on what form it should take. Public expectations remain high, particularly in terms of fairness and effectiveness.
Are SMEs and business productivity being adequately addressed?
There was strong agreement that SMEs are a critical part of the economy, though often under-served in policy discussions. Nevin argued that many small and mid-sized firms are still navigating the implications of recent tax changes, and would benefit from more targeted support — especially around skills development and innovation.
Buckley echoed this point, stressing that future budgets must better reflect the realities SMEs face. He also highlighted the role SMEs play in regional growth and long-term economic resilience.
Is the UK doing enough to improve productivity and long-term growth?
Seamus Nevin made the case for a comprehensive industrial strategy focused on skills, infrastructure, and automation. He argued that productivity improvements are key to increasing wages, reducing reliance on welfare, and expanding the tax base. He also pointed to pension fund reform as a potential source of long-term capital, provided it’s managed carefully to protect vulnerable groups.
Buckley added that changing the UK’s investment culture — encouraging individuals to invest in productive assets rather than cash savings — could help drive economic growth from the bottom up.
What is the UK’s economic position internationally?
Both McDonagh and Buckley highlighted the importance of improving the UK’s trading relationship with the EU. While engagement with the US remains important, they agreed that the most immediate opportunities for growth lie in easing post-Brexit frictions and deepening trade with Europe.
Twyman cautioned against assuming that high-profile trade deals would deliver rapid benefits. He stressed that domestic concerns — inflation, the cost of living, and wage growth — continue to shape public attitudes more than international agreements.
From Inside the Tent.....Labour Senior Counsel Mike Buckley gives his take on The Chancellor’s Spring Statement
Rachel Reeves did what she had to do in her Spring Statement – restore the fiscal headroom lost because of higher interest rates and inflation have together driven up the cost of Government debt.
Her Statement restored the £9.9bn margin of error against her “non-negotiable” fiscal rule which requires her to balance the current budget by 2029-30.
Opponents argue that Reeves could and should have instead changed the fiscal rules – they are of Reeves’ own making after all.
But the Government firmly believe that meeting existing rules remains key to keeping both market confidence and public opinion onside, and that changing them now, so soon after they were set, would be a sign of weakness and an inability to manage public finances.
Given the high levels of Government debt there is genuine fear in the Treasury that bond markets could take fright if fiscal rules were changed or broken – causing a Liz Truss-style crisis – if Reeves tore up the framework she set herself just six months ago.
Labour remembers too how the Conservatives’ loss of economic credibility under Truss, was a key cause of their landslide electoral defeat last summer. Labour does not want to follow the same path.
But that choice comes with consequences. With borrowing out of the question Reeves had two options: raise tax or cut spending. That she chose to cut spending – in particular social security – creates a double challenge for the Labour Party.
In the short term is exposes them to criticism from their own side as well as opponents. Labour MPs, the TUC and living standards-focused think tanks like the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Resolution Foundation have criticised the depth of welfare cuts, arguing they will cause too much pain to disabled people in particular, and will push thousands into poverty.
Reeves claims her policies, including benefit cuts, will get people into work instead of pushing them into poverty. She will need to work with colleagues in welfare, business and other departments to ensure that proves true.
The second problem is that benefit cuts could harm the public perception of the party. Labour is, as claimed regularly by Ministers, the party of work. But it is also the party of social justice. Actions which bring that perception into question could harm its support among voters. That puts more pressure on the Government as a whole to ensure that social justice aims are realised along with growth and raised living standards.