defence spending boosted as further disability benefit cuts announced – experts react

Not even six months on from Labour’s first budget, and the world is a much-changed place. Geopolitical tensions and uncertainties, already high last year, have risen further, and with them the cost of the UK’s debt, while economic growth has stalled. As such, Chancellor Rachel Reeves has confronted an array of unpalatable choices – notably cutting disability benefits – to enable her to increase defence spending and stabilise the public finances. Here’s what our panel of experts made of the statement:

Falling inflation wasn’t enough to prevent further disability cuts

Shampa Roy-Mukherjee, Vice Dean and Professor in Economics, University of East London

The independent Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has halved the UK’s 2025 growth forecast to 1%, down from the previously projected 2%. This sluggish growth, coupled with increased borrowing costs, has effectively eliminated the government’s £9.9 billion “fiscal headroom” – its financial buffer – resulting in a £4.1 billion shortfall by 2029-30.

There was some short-term relief in the latest inflation figures. These showed a slowdown in price rises in February (2.8% against 3% in January). The dip was caused by discounting of items like clothing. But given around half of businesses are considering price rises to combat tax hikes and the national living wage increase coming in April, this relief is likely to be short-lived. The OBR forecasts that inflation will climb back up to 3.2% this year.

The government had previously set out its controversial plans for £5 billion in welfare cuts. But the OBR rejected the claim that the reforms would save that much, estimating the savings at £3.4 billion, leaving Reeves with a £1.6 billion shortfall. As such, she has had to announce additional welfare reforms.

These include freezing the universal credit health element until 2030 and reducing it to £50 a week for new claimants. This is aimed at saving an additional £500 million by 2030 – and combined with other planned welfare reforms could affect more than 3 million people. But the standard allowance for universal credit will see an above-inflation increase from 2026-27 and the incomes of those with the most severe lifelong conditions will be protected.

Civil service administrative budgets are also to be reduced – by 15% by 2029-30. This, along with other efficiency and productivity improvements, will lead to annual savings of £3.5 billion. These cuts will focus on areas like human resources, policy advice, and office management, rather than frontline services.

Reeves resorted to tricks and ‘efficiency savings’

Steve Schifferes, Honorary Research Fellow, City St George’s, University of London

Reeves has announced a series of tweaks to her spending plans to address the economic situation which has meant that she is in danger of breaking her self-imposed fiscal rules. The chancellor was at pains to say that these rules are “non-negotiable”.

But these are unlikely to tackle the deeper problem – that in the short term she cannot rely on economic growth to square the circle of Labour’s three contradictory election pledges. These were more spending on public services, lower taxes and strict fiscal rules.

The UK, in fact, is particularly vulnerable to the disruption of global trade that is likely to result from US president Donald Trump’s tariff wars. And the productivity gains from her long-term infrastructure plans will take years – if not a decade – to translate into higher growth.

Like many chancellors, Reeves has resorted to various tricks – such as counting money moved to the defence budget to build tanks and aircraft as capital spending (and therefore exempt from the borrowing rules). And she has called for “efficiency savings” in the civil service and government departments that are unlikely to be realised.

But the biggest savings are coming from deeper than expected cuts in disability payments and other welfare payments, reducing the income of more than 3 million people. This is upsetting many Labour MPs. Her big sweetener – £2 billion for social housing next year – is actually less than that already allocated by the previous Conservative government.

Crucially, the further savings likely to be demanded in the spending review (announced on June 11) from unprotected departments including local government, justice and environment, will certainly look a lot like a return to austerity.

In the end – and possibly as soon as the autumn budget – the chancellor will have to accept that as well as spending cuts, she will have to consider tax increases and possibly even a revision of the fiscal rules.

Otherwise, she will remain at the mercy of the markets and the forecasters. Any long-term strategy will be strangled by the need to continually adjust policy to meet the fiscal “headroom” target she has set which leaves little room for manoeuvre. This requires an implausibly accurate prediction of the state of the economy in five years’ time by the OBR.

Commitment to financial stability is actually increasing uncertainty

Linda Yueh, Fellow and Adjunct Professor of Economics, University of Oxford

The chancellor’s self-imposed fiscal rules are intended to provide stability – one of the foundations of economic growth. One of those rules, which Rachel Reeves has said she will not bend, is that government day-to-day spending must be balanced by tax receipts by the end of this parliament.

This is intended to provide transparency on fiscal policy. And Reeves clearly understands the importance of how international financial markets react to the UK’s level of spending – and its public debt (currently about 100% of GDP).

But the world is not a stable place. And with the OBR halving its 2025 GDP growth forecast from 2% to 1%, unplanned cuts to public spending followed.

Consistency in fiscal policy helps households and business to plan for the future. But during times of heightened uncertainty with global tariffs looming, GDP is likely to remain volatile. This makes not changing the government’s fiscal stance particularly challenging.

It is also challenging for chancellor personally, as she would prefer to have one “fiscal event” a year, rather than two. But the OBR is obliged to provide economic forecasts twice a year, and when it slashes expected growth, she is duty bound to respond.

Somewhat ironically then, the government’s stability rule is having the unintended consequence of adding policy uncertainty to an already uncertain overall economic environment – and more frequent changes to fiscal policy.

Modest defence spending boost will struggle to reverse years of decline

Jamie Gaskarth, Professor of Foreign Policy and International Relations, the Open University

In two months, the UK defence sector has been turned upside down – primarily by Donald Trump. His administration has made implied threats to invade a NATO ally (Denmark), challenged the sovereignty of another (Canada) and pulled support for Ukraine, openly siding with Russia in ceasefire negotiations. There is a real chance the US will draw down its security presence in Europe.

If European countries are to meet the full cost of their own security, this will have to mean a dramatic increase in defence budgets. So far, the UK has redistributed aid money to help fund an increase in defence spending to 2.5% of GDP (from 2.3%) by 2027, with the ambition to raise it to 3% in the next parliament.

It has also offered an extra £2 billion to underwrite defence exports. But this is small beer.

As with many areas of public spending, dramatic cuts to the defence budget during the years of austerity (22% in real terms) have meant delays to procurement, crumbling estates and a chronic lack of investment.

This will take a substantial uplift to redress. Recent increases under the Conservatives were eaten up by capital costs and inflation.

And while ideas such as the £400 million ringfenced to support innovation in AI and new technology are welcome, these are tiny amounts in the grand scheme of things. The UK is not going to be a “defence industrial superpower” any time soon if budget announcements are this small, and increases so modest.

Promise to disabled people in tatters

William E. Donald, Associate Professor of Sustainable Careers and Human Resource Management, University of Southampton

In November, social security and disability minister Sir Stephen Timms spoke passionately at the Shaw Trust Disability Power 100 awards, vowing to undo past injustices and declaring: “We now want to put that right.” As a disabled person, I cheered. That promise now lies in ruins.

Despite government claims there will be no return to austerity, sick and disabled people face a real-terms cut to their incomes and the criteria for claiming personal independence payment (Pip) will become stricter than ever. This isn’t just a policy to save £5 billion, it’s cruelty and a devastating attack on disabled people.

Pip isn’t means-tested and is paid regardless of whether you work. It exists because, according to disability charity Scope, disabled households need an additional £1,010 a month to achieve the same standard of living as others. Stripping this support away while NHS mental health waiting lists grow, energy and food prices rise, and the disability pay gap sits at 12.7% won’t push people into work. It will push them into crisis.

Last year, Labour promised to break barriers for disabled people. Instead, they are building new ones. These cuts come at the expense of society’s most vulnerable. The consequences will be catastrophic.

Social housing boost – but homes could be improved now

Nicky Shaw, Senior Lecturer in Operations Management, Leeds University Business School, and Simon Williams, Associate Faculty, Leeds University Business School

The chancellor’s £2 billion investment in new homes will certainly help to increase the availability of affordable social housing. Everyone agrees that access to decent, affordable homes is important, but the quality and maintenance of existing social houses remains critical. Replacing cladding, for example, is stubbornly challenging.

But beyond just building more social housing, our research has explored key measures of tenant satisfaction. The potential ways for digital tools such as AI to improve the efficiency of tasks like repairs and maintenance in future are numerous.

But social housing’s tenant demographic includes many people who are more vulnerable, some of whom prefer not to – or simply cannot – engage with digital services. This means that sustaining face-to-face contact with tenants is critical. Investing in tenants’ experience now could really deliver tangible benefits for some of Britain’s most vulnerable people.