Tendo Director and former SpAd Will De Peyer commented ahead of the Spring Statement on what to expect from Rachel Reeves, and, more importantly, what she is choosing not to announce.
We have become accustomed to having two headline-grabbing fiscal events a year, during which the Chancellor will stand in front of parliamentarians and introduce new policies alongside the Office for Budget Responsibility’s (OBR) independent economic forecasts.
So, as we approach the 2026 Spring Statement, the obvious question on everyone’s mind is what will the Chancellor announce? The more interesting question is what she has decided not to announce.
She has been clear: this will not be a second full Budget and, if things go her way, it will not create headlines.
That may sound procedural. But it most definitely isn’t. In Treasury terms, process is policy. Fiscal events shape behaviour in markets, in boardrooms, and across Whitehall and politics. They have the power to shape fortunes. After years of shocks, instability, speculation, reversals and emergency interventions, the case for fewer, more predictable moments of fiscal decision-making is strong.
There is serious institutional logic behind limiting this Spring to a technical update and response to the OBR’s forecast. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has consistently argued that credibility comes from stability, not surprise. The Institute for Government has made a similar point that government works better when it is not permanently braced for the next fiscal announcement.
But it is not a neutral choice. A full Budget is one of the few occasions when a Chancellor commands total political attention. It creates space to take difficult decisions, reset expectations and frame a broader economic narrative. By keeping the Spring Statement deliberately narrow, the Chancellor is giving up that platform. That is a disciplined move, but it also narrows her room for manoeuvre.
And the pressures are mounting. Most notably, there is an increasingly vocal case, both domestically and from allies, for higher defence spending. In a more dangerous geopolitical environment, that pressure will not fade. Yet meaningful increases in defence cannot be absorbed without consequences elsewhere. This could mean tax rises, increased borrowing or other departmental budgets being squeezed. Successfully managing that debate without a full fiscal event will require tight control of both policy and expectations.
Then, there is the issue that ultimately governs everything: the independent economic forecast. Harold Macmillan once said that what most threatened governments was “events, dear boy, events.” Anyone who has sat through a Treasury forecast round understands the truth in that. Chancellors can set frameworks. They cannot set global growth, energy prices or predict from one day to the next what the current US president will say or do. Nor do they control the judgments of the OBR.
A relatively small shift in growth assumptions can add or remove billions from the fiscal outlook. Headroom appears, headroom disappears. The political pressure to act follows either way.
When I worked in the Treasury between 2010 and 2015, we briefly explored reducing the number of fiscal events. The intellectual case was compelling. But the reality of shifting forecasts and the political imperative to act meant it was an option quickly abandoned. What begins as a modest technical update can expand rapidly once the first forecast comes in and the trade-offs crystallise. If the Chancellor manages to maintain a single, disciplined fiscal moment this year and next, it will demonstrate control. But it will also suggest something else, much more valuable: the economic and geopolitical weather has steadied. Unfortunately, that part is not entirely within her gift.
So, for businesses thinking about tax, regulation or sector settlements in the run-up to the Autumn Budget, this matters. Policy is rarely improvised at the dispatch box. It is quietly shaped in the background through analysis, political priorities, forecasts, internal trade-offs and institutional constraints long before it is announced. Understanding the machinery behind the public-facing political moments is often the difference between reacting to policy and influencing it.
