logo
How quickly could Rachel Reeves' new plans boost growth?

How quickly could Rachel Reeves' new plans boost growth?

Yahoo29-01-2025

Chancellor Rachel Reeves said on Wednesday that "economic growth is the number one mission of this government" as she unveiled a series of proposals to boost the UK's economy.
But how quickly could the government get growth from the plans she announced?
Critics have argued some of the projects - such as expanding Heathrow - would not help in the near term.
BBC Verify has examined some of the key numbers and claims.
The most recent official data shows there was virtually no growth in GDP - the overall size of the UK economy - between the July 2024 election and November 2024.
And the latest medium term official growth forecast from the Office for Budget Responsiblity, the government's official forecaster, is for 1.6% GDP growth in 2029, which would be well below the pre-2008 financial crisis average growth of 2.8% a year.
However, the International Monetary Fund has forecast that the UK's growth rate for 2025 and 2026 will be higher than in France and Germany.
Lower rates of GDP growth would translate into slower growth in our wages and incomes and general living standards.
The chancellor said that allowing Heathrow to build a third runway would "create 100,000 jobs", boost investment and exports and "unlock futher growth".
She cited a new report by the consultancy Frontier Economics which found it could increase the UK's potential GDP by 2050 by 0.43%, around £17bn.
That is broadly in line with the findings of an independent commission by Sir Howard Davies in 2015, which concluded a third runway at Heathrow would support UK trade and enhance productivity and push up GDP by 0.65-0.75% by 2050 relative to otherwise.
However, most analysts believe it would likely take many years before shovels went into the ground to start building a new runway, even with new reforms to speed up the planning process.
And the government will have a difficult balancing act to both expand Heathrow and meet its climate goals.
BBC Verify asked the Treasury for its source for the 100,000 jobs figure and it pointed to a 2017 report by the Department for Transport estimating that a new runway at Heathrow could add between 57,000 and 114,000 additional local jobs. Though that report added that "these jobs are not additional at the national level, as some jobs may have been displaced from other airports or other sectors."
The chancellor in her speech claimed an Oxford and Cambridge Growth Corridor "could add up to £78bn to the UK economy by 2035".
This corridor is a resurrection of the previous government's plans to join Oxford and Cambridge with new transport links and allow those two university and research hubs to expand.
In support of the chancellor's figure, the Treasury has cited research by an industry group called the Oxford-Cambridge Supercluster.
This research shows that this £78bn is a "cumulative figure" over 10 years, not the boost in a given year.
The analysis suggests the project could add £25bn in Gross Value Added (GVA) a year to the UK economy by 2035.
That would constitute roughly a permanent 1% boost to UK GDP by that date.
Estimates of the impacts of an infrastructure project on growth are inherently uncertain and very sensitive to the assumptions of researchers about what would have happened to growth if it had never been built.
Yet most economists do believe infrastructure projects, especially those that allow already productive places to expand, will ultimately help the UK economy grow more rapidly than otherwise.
Ben Caswell, a senior economist at The National Institute of Economic and Social Research (Niesr), said: "Big infrastructure projects typically deliver growth over the long term, approximately 10 to 20 years."
"There may be a small demand side boost in the short term when shovels are in the ground, but nothing so significant that you would see it in headline GDP growth figures.
"However, after the project is complete, the supply capacity of the economy is permanently enhanced, and, all other things equal, that delivers higher sustained GDP growth than would have otherwise been."
Another reform the chancellor says will be pro-growth is enabling UK companies to access the funds from their "defined benefit pension" pots, held on behalf of their workforces to fund their retirement.
Defined benefit pension schemes guarantee an annual pension payment to retired workers, based on their salary while they were in work.
Many of these defined benefit pension pots have moved into surplus in recent years due to the rise in interest rates since the pandemic, meaning their financial assets (their investments) are greater than their financial liabilities (what they have to pay out to pensioners).
The Treasury has said that approximately 75% of schemes are now in surplus and that the total surplus adds up to £160bn.
The chancellor wants to legislate to allow the firms to use these funds to invest, while keeping safeguards to protect and guarantee workers' pension pay-outs.
Pension shake-up plan aims to boost growth
What's the plan for a third runway at Heathrow Airport?
At a glance: What was in Rachel Reeves's speech?
Measuring the size of the surplus of defined benefit scheme depends on various complex assumptions about the scheme and its relationship to the employer.
The official Pension Regulator estimates that on one measurement the size in September 2024 was £207bn, but £137bn on a different measurement.
The Treasury's estimate is roughly midway between the two.
If such sums were deployed that could, in theory, make a positive difference to overall UK business investment, which is regarded by economists as both a short term and a long term driver of GDP growth.
Total business investment in 2023, according to official data, was £258bn.
But the size of any boost from this pension reform would depend on companies being willing to invest their surpluses, which is subject to great uncertainty as many firms have been looking to offload their defined benefit pension schemes to insurance companies in recent years.
What do you want BBC Verify to investigate?
Reeves backs third Heathrow runway in growth push
Labour must make economic growth ideas work this time
Will a third runway at Heathrow help UK growth?

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

NHS faces paying more for US drugs to avoid future Trump tariffs
NHS faces paying more for US drugs to avoid future Trump tariffs

Yahoo

time3 hours ago

  • Yahoo

NHS faces paying more for US drugs to avoid future Trump tariffs

Britain faces paying more for US drugs as part of a deal to avoid future tariffs from Donald Trump. The NHS will review drug pricing to take into account the 'concerns of the president', according to documents released after a trade agreement was signed earlier this year. White House sources said it expected the NHS to pay higher prices for American drugs in an attempt to boost the interests of corporate America. A Westminster source said: 'There's an understanding that we would look at the drug pricing issue in the concerns of the president.' The disclosure is likely to increase concerns about American interference in the British health service, which has long been regarded as a flashpoint in trade talks. It comes after Rachel Reeves announced a record £29 billion investment in the NHS in last week's spending review. The Chancellor's plans will drive spending on the health service up towards 50 per cent of all taxpayer expenditure by the mid-2030s, according to economists at the Resolution Foundation. The Telegraph has also learnt that under the terms of the trade deal with America, the UK has agreed to take fewer Chinese drugs, in a clause similar to the 'veto' given to Mr Trump over Chinese investment in Britain. The White House has asked the UK for assurances that steel and pharmaceutical products exported to the US do not originate in China, amid fears the deal could be used to 'circumvent' Mr Trump's punishing tariffs on Beijing. Mr Trump is enraged by how much more America pays for drugs compared with other countries and considers it to be the same issue as he has raised on defence spending. Just as the US president has heaped pressure on European nations to increase the GDP share they allocate to defence, he thinks they should spend more on drug development. An industry source said: 'The way we've been thinking about it and many in the administration have been thinking about it, it's more like the model in Nato, where countries contribute some share of their GDP.' Britain and the US 'intend to promptly negotiate significantly preferential treatment outcomes on pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients', the trade deal reads. Pharmaceutical companies are also pushing for reductions in the revenue sales rebates they pay to the NHS under the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth (VPAG) – a mechanism that the UK uses to make sure the NHS does not overpay. Last week, Albert Bourla, Pfizer's chief executive, said non-US countries were 'free-riding' and called for a US government-led push to make other nations increase their proportionate spend on innovative medicines. He said White House officials were discussing drug prices in trade negotiations with other countries. 'We represent in UK 0.3pc of their GDP per capita. That's how much they spend on medicine. So yes, they can increase prices,' Mr Bourla said. Industry sources said there was no indication yet on what the White House would consider to be a fair level of spending. Whatever the benchmark, Britain will face one of the biggest step-ups. UK expenditure on new innovative medicines is just 0.28pc of its GDP, roughly a third of America's proportionate spending of 0.78pc of its GDP. Even among other G7 nations, the UK is an anomaly. Germany spends 0.4pc of its GDP while Italy spends 0.5pc. Most large pharmaceutical companies generate between half and three quarters of their profits in the US, despite the fact that America typically makes up less than a fifth of their sales. This is because drug prices outside of the US can cost as little as 30pc of what Americans pay. Yet, pharmaceutical companies rely on higher US prices to fund drug research and development, which the rest of the world benefits from. A month ago, Mr Trump signed an executive order titled 'Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients', which hit out at 'global freeloading' on drug pricing. It stated that 'Americans should not be forced to subsidise low-cost prescription drugs and biologics in other developed countries, and face overcharges for the same products in the United States' and ordered his commerce secretary to 'consider all necessary action regarding the export of pharmaceutical drugs or precursor material that may be fuelling the global price discrimination'. Trung Huynh, the head of pharma analysis at UBS, said: 'The crux of this issue is Trump thinks that the US is subsidising the rest of the world with drug prices. 'The president has said he wants to equalise pricing between the US and ex-US. And the way he wants to do it is not necessarily to bring down US prices all the way to where ex-US prices are, but he wants to use trade and tariffs as a pressure point to get countries to increase their prices. 'If he can offset some of the price by increasing prices higher ex-US, then the prices in America don't have to go down so much.' Mr Huynh added: 'It's going to be very hard for him to do. Because [in the UK deal] it hinges on the NHS, which we know has got zero money.' Under VPAG, pharmaceutical companies hand back at least 23pc of their revenue from sales of branded medicines back to the NHS, worth £3bn in the past financial year. The industry is pushing for this clawback to be cut to 10pc, which would mean the NHS would have to spend around 1.54bn more on the same medicines on an annual basis. The Government has already committed to reviewing the scheme, a decision which is understood to pre-date US trade negotiations. A government spokesman said: 'This Government is clear that we will only ever sign trade agreements that align with the UK's national interests and to suggest otherwise would be misleading. 'The UK has well-established and effective mechanisms for managing the costs of medicines and has clear processes in place to mitigate risks to supply.'

Veteran analyst sends surprising message on stocks, bonds, and gold
Veteran analyst sends surprising message on stocks, bonds, and gold

Miami Herald

time5 hours ago

  • Miami Herald

Veteran analyst sends surprising message on stocks, bonds, and gold

The stock market rally has been impressive. Since President Donald Trump paused most reciprocal tariffs on April 9, only days after announcing them, stocks have soared. The S&P 500 has gained about 20%, while the tech-stock heavy Nasdaq Composite is up 27%. Those returns in such a short span significantly outpace the average 10% annual return for stocks since 1928. Stocks haven't been the only winner. Gold has also notched impressive returns this year. The yellow metal has rallied 30% in 2025 as investors have sought to insulate risk amid growing economic concerns surrounding debt and the impact of tariffs on inflation. Related: Legendary fund manager sends blunt 3-word message on economy The one big disappointment this year: Treasury bonds. They've tumbled, sending bond yields soaring, as global investors have soured on financing America's insatiable appetite for spending. The market action has captured the attention of many, including veteran commodities and futures analyst Carley Garner. Garner has been professionally navigating these markets for twenty years, and her track record includes accurately predicting the stock rally in 2023 and last year's decline in oil prices. Garner updated her outlook on stocks, gold, and bonds, and her takeaway may surprise rally since the lows in early April likely surprised many, given significant economic risks remain. While inflation has retreated below 3% from over 8% in 2022, price increases over the past years have cash-strapped consumers, causing them to shift spending from discretionary purchases to essentials. Related: Bank of America unveils surprising Fed interest rate forecast for 2026 The problem has been compounded by an uptick in unemployment, which has increased to 4.2% from 3.4% in 2023, partly due to higher interest rates designed to crimp inflation. According to Challenger, Gray, & Christmas, U.S. companies have laid off 696,309 workers this year through May, up 80% from one year ago. The situation isn't likely to get much better for workers. While Trump paused many reciprocal tariffs in April, key tariffs remain, including a 25% tariff on Canada and Mexico and autos, a 10% tariff on all imports, and 30% tariff on China (total tariffs on China, including those put in place during President Trump's first term exceed 50%). The remaining tariffs, and potential for more after the 90-day pause expires, could fuel inflation later this year, particularly in retail, which sources everything from clothing to electronics from overseas. The risk of inflation alongside job losses suggests America could go headlong into a period of stagflation or recession. Despite those risks, the S&P 500 and Nasdaq Composite have notched remarkable gains. Investors who quickly sold amid tariff announcements earlier this year have been left behind, and as a result, they're buying every dip to regain their exposure. One major exception? Warren Buffett. The Oracle of Omaha has increased Berkshire Hathaway's cash position, choosing to collect guaranteed fixed income from T-bills rather than leap back into the stock market amid the uncertainty. Exiting the first quarter, Warren Buffett's cash stockpile eclipsed $347 billion, a record, and more than double the levels exiting 2023. The rallies in stocks and gold may continue, but like Buffett, Carley Garner doesn't see the risk-to-reward as overly compelling in stocks. She's also become bearish on gold relative to bonds, given that gold has moved significantly higher and, unlike bonds, doesn't pay dividends. "While I believe the S&P 500 can easily reach 6300 to 6400, the downside risk might be outsized relative to the potential reward," wrote Garner on TheStreet Pro. "Since 1928, the S&P 500 has returned an average annual rate of 10%; however, in recent years, the average return has been abnormally high, at approximately 14%. There is a good chance that, like the dot-com era, we have pulled forward gains and could be on the verge of a "returnless" market in the coming years." Garner points to a key measure favored by Warren Buffett regarding stock market valuation as evidence that stocks are over their skis. More Experts: Fed official sends strong message about interest-rate cutsBillionaire fund manager sends surprising message on trade deficitHedge-fund manager sees U.S. becoming Greece "The Warren Buffett Indicator measures the total stock market value vs. the GDP," wrote Garner. "Since 1950, the stock market has only been this overstretched a few other times. Not surprisingly, the dot-com bubble was one of those times. Historically, this indicator has not been the time to hit the gas on risk assets. It has been the opposite." The arguable overvaluation of stocks could mean the risk of a reckoning is high enough to concentrate on other assets. However, gold may not be the best bet, given it's already made a big move higher. Instead, it's Treasury bonds that Garner believes offer the best chance for upside. "There is only one [of these assets] near a two-decade low in valuation: Treasuries," writes Garner. "Except for some forms of real estate, it is the only asset that yields an attractive income stream. Lastly, Treasuries are the least risky asset class in the world but the market is treating the securities as anything but." Garner points out that people were flocking to own bonds with paltry yields only five years ago. Now, they're shunning yields near 4.5%. Many are hesitant to own bonds despite the high yields, fearing that bonds will continue to drop, sending yields even higher, as the US debt load rises. While it's true that lower bond values could mean short-term losses, Garner views the risk of a US default as unlikely, suggesting that those holding Treasuries to maturity will be fine, and pocket healthy income along the way. "Historically, there have been two other instances in history when stocks were as overvalued as they are now relative to bonds. Or, alternatively, bonds were this undervalued relative to stocks," wrote Garner. "Such opportunities have only arisen once every two decades, and they have proven to be significant inflection points in both stocks (the beginning of prolonged underperformance) and bonds (the start of a period of capital gains to enhance interest earned). This metric has been similarly favoring bonds since the initial collapse in 2023, so instant satisfaction shouldn't be expected, but patience will likely pay off." Related: Veteran fund manager issues dire stock market warning The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.

The UK should protect its allies in the Gulf and Middle East – but Israel isn't one of them
The UK should protect its allies in the Gulf and Middle East – but Israel isn't one of them

Yahoo

time6 hours ago

  • Yahoo

The UK should protect its allies in the Gulf and Middle East – but Israel isn't one of them

For Britain, Israel is mostly a strategic liability – but it's also a very close ally in stopping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Now that Israel is locked in a war with Iran and Britain is rushing to send a handful of RAF jets to the region, that relationship needs careful management. The UK cannot afford to be seen as guilty by association in respect of Israel's campaign in Gaza, or to suffer reputational damage by offering Israel unnecessary help – there is plenty for the RAF to do aside from that. Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, has said that the aircraft may be used to defend the UK's allies – in other words, shoot down Iranian missiles heading towards Tel Aviv. Helping Israel to stop the erratic and malevolent Iranian regime from making an atomic bomb is smart. Being seen to do so, and protecting Israel against the consequences of its endeavours, is not. Iran has threatened to attack any US ally that defends Israel. The US has already helped to shoot down ballistic missiles fired by Tehran in retaliation for the ongoing, and widespread, Israeli attacks on Iran's air defences, missile systems, military leadership and nuclear programme. The US has a vast array of military assets very close to Iran, with air force and navy bases positioned across the Persian Gulf, in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE, and Oman. These are all vulnerable to attack. Given the UK is a Nato member, joining in with the defence of these locations would be good politics, and could be considered part of its obligations to the alliance under the Article 5 mutual defence agreement. But Reeves was opaque about what the RAF's handful of aircraft, likely operating out of Akrotiri in Cyprus, would be doing. Asked whether the UK would come to Israel's aid if it were asked to, the chancellor told Sky News's Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips: 'We have, in the past, supported Israel when there have been missiles coming in. I'm not going to comment on what might happen in the future, but so far we haven't been involved, and we're sending in assets both to protect ourselves and also potentially to support our allies.' Let's be very clear. Israel is prosecuting a campaign against the population of Gaza with the intent, according to Israeli cabinet ministers, to empty the territory of 2.5 million people. It is simultaneously campaigning on the West Bank, illegally taking land from Palestinians there, setting up colonies, and imposing a system of grand apartheid on the non-Jewish population. The UK has attracted widespread criticism for its reluctant and tardy criticism of these operations, and continues to operate a spy plane over Gaza while supplying small amounts of military equipment to Israel. This is a very bad look – a moral failure that could lead to blowback in the form of violence against the UK. In April last year, former head of MI6 Sir Alex Younger told a Commons committee: 'You cannot pretend that the international environment, our foreign policy or the way in which the West is perceived are not significant drivers of all of this.' This is obvious. It should be obvious, too, to the British government that the very limited military capacity the UK has will make no difference at all to the defence of Israel. Israeli forces were able to fly 200 planes in their first attacks on Iran this week. There's no way the UK can get that many into the air under any circumstances. According to Military Balance 2025, a report published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Israel has 240 fighter-bombers. The UK has 113. Israel has more attack helicopters (Apaches mostly) – 38 vs 31 – and the RAF has only nine aerial tankers compared with Israel's 14. Israel also has the kind of air-defence capability that the UK could only dream of; this includes the Iron Dome system, so effective against Hamas attacks. It also has the David's Sling system, which has a range of about 185 miles and, like the Iron Dome, can take down short- and medium-range missiles by smashing into them mid-flight. Meanwhile, its Arrow 2 defence system can hit incoming missiles 30 miles away at very high altitude, while Arrow 3 has a range of 1,500 miles and can shoot down missiles in space. The UK and US do have a very important listening station in Akrotiri, which is also a busy airfield for planes flying over Gaza and the whole of the Middle East. It is within range of Iranian missiles and would need defending by the UK's extra jets and other assets. Iran is likely to try to strangle oil traffic through the Gulf. The UK used to help patrol the region, but the Royal Navy has been steadily reducing its presence there. Meanwhile, Britain runs the UK Maritime Trade Operations service, which advises shipping in the Gulf and Red Sea about security threats. It has stepped up its warnings to shipping in the Gulf and has reported the jamming of navigation systems and ramming attacks by small, unknown vessels before Israel's sorties against Tehran. These operations are clearly ongoing rehearsals and training being carried out by Iranian forces. So, there is plenty for Britain to do without risking the reputational damage that could occur as a result of helping Israel with military aid that it hardly needs right now. It's geopolitical dirty linen.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store