ICAEW chart of the week – Martin Wheatcroft

ICAEW chart of the week: Controlling for debt

My chart for ICAEW this week shows how the high level of public debt is the main factor shaping next week’s Autumn Budget.

In the run up to next week’s Autumn Budget it has become clear that the Chancellor has very little room for manoeuvre.

In past fiscal events, a moderate downgrade in the economic and fiscal forecasts (see last week’s chart of the week) would typically be dealt with by allowing borrowing to rise, albeit in combination with a small cut in planned public spending (often to capital expenditure) and perhaps some minor tax rises.

This time is different. Borrowing – the normal safety valve for adverse forecast changes – is constrained by the existing high level of debt and by government’s existing plan to borrow substantial sums over the next five years, as illustrated by our chart of the week.

As my chart for ICAEW sets out, public sector net debt has risen over the past quarter of a century from £353bn on 31 March 2000 to £461bn in 2005, £1,028bn in 2010, £1,552bn in 2015, £1,816bn in 2020 and £2,810bn in 2025. It is forecast to rise further to £3,391bn on 31 March 2030.

Although the planned increase of £581bn over the coming five years is less than the £994bn increase over the previous five years, the latter included both the pandemic and an unexpected energy crisis.

The chart also shows how public sector net financial liabilities (PSNFL), the measure of debt that the Chancellor uses for her fiscal rules, increased from £300bn on 31 March 2000 to £2,439bn on 31 March 2025, with a planned rise of £480bn to £2,919bn due to take place on 31 March 2030.

The Chancellor’s debt fiscal rule is for the ratio of PSNFL to GDP starting to fall by 2029/30, or – in other words – for the rate at which debt is increasing to be slower than the rate of growth in the economy in four years’ time. The hope is that the borrowing the government is doing now to invest in infrastructure and economic development will speed up economic growth over that time, but unfortunately that is not yet showing up in the forecasts, which are going in the opposite direction.

With higher borrowing ruled out, the next option would be to look at spending. This also looks difficult as the Spending Review earlier this year locked in departmental budgets for the next few years (to 2028/29 for current spending and to 2029/30 for capital investment). Likewise, significant cuts in welfare spending also appear unlikely given the government’s failure to persuade its MPs to back a plan to cut back on disability and illness benefits and hints that the government wants to lift the two-child benefit cap. The Chancellor could potentially re-open the Spending Review, but that would risk spending going up not down given the continued pressures on health and the criminal justice systems, not to mention the international pressure from President Trump and others to accelerate increases in defence spending.

With other options such as raising the level of net inward migration also ruled out, that leaves taxation as the only real lever available to the Chancellor.

The flood of speculation ahead of next week’s Autumn Budget 2025 has ranged from manifesto-busting increases in one of the ‘big three’ taxes (income tax, VAT and national insurance) and fiscal drag (from the extension of freezes in tax allowances), to a long list of tax raising ideas to bring in just a little bit more money here and there that might together add up to a substantial amount.

At this point it seems that little can be ruled out.

This chart was originally published by ICAEW.

ICAEW chart of the week: A big Autumn Budget hole to fill?

My chart for ICAEW this week takes a look at the £40bn ‘hole’ in the public finances that the Chancellor may have to fill when she presents the Autumn Budget 2025 to Parliament on Wednesday 26 November.

There are two really big questions that most of us have for the Chancellor about the Autumn Budget 2025. Firstly, just how much money does she need to find? Secondly, where is she is going to find it?

My chart for ICAEW this week focuses on the first question – how much will the Chancellor need to find (in tax rises or spending cuts) to stick within her fiscal rules?

Speculation ranges from just under £20bn a year up to as much as £50bn depending on who you talk to, with the consensus being somewhere in the region of £30bn or £40bn.

The starting point for the chart is the official OBR projection that the Chancellor has already received. As we don’t have access to that, we have cribbed from the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) Green Budget 2025 report, an independent ‘green paper’ pre-legislative report that provides an in-depth analysis of the economic and fiscal situation facing the UK that also takes a look at potential options available to the Chancellor.

Based on an updated economic forecast prepared by Barclays, the IFS think that the OBR’s March 2025 projected current budget surplus of £10bn in 2029/30 could be revised down to a projected current budget deficit of £12bn – a £22bn deterioration.

The numbers calculated by the IFS indicate £8bn lower tax receipts, £5bn higher debt interest, and £9bn higher current spending. The lower tax receipts and higher debt interest reflect a less favourable economic outlook than anticipated by the OBR back in March, while the latter consists of £1bn from the partial roll-back of cuts to the winter fuel allowance, £5bn from the failure to enact previously planned cuts to disability benefits, and £3bn from the effect of higher than previously forecast inflation on the uprating of the state pension and other welfare benefits.

If the OBR’s updated projections were to align with this scenario, then the Chancellor would need to find £22bn to get back to a projected current budget surplus of £10bn in 2029/30, assuming she decides again to give herself £10bn of headroom against her primary fiscal rule of a current budget balance.

We don’t know how these numbers compare with the numbers that the OBR are working on, but we do know that the OBR has been reviewing its assumptions for productivity growth, where it has proved consistently over-optimistic in previous forecasts. The IFS estimate that just a 0.1 percentage point downgrade in annual productivity growth would reduce the current budget balance by around £7bn in 2029/30, highlighting how sensitive the numbers are to relatively small changes. The IFS assume a downgrade of between 0.1 and 0.2 percentage points in their projection, although some rumours suggest the OBR has been considering a downgrade of as much as 0.3 percentage points.

The Chancellor has dropped a clear hint that she is going to abolish the two-child limit in the Autumn Budget as part of the government’s efforts to tackle child poverty, with the IFS and the Resolution Foundation both estimating that this could cost the exchequer between £3bn and £4bn a year by 2029/30. This would take the potential ‘hole’ up to £25bn.

For the purposes of the chart, I have also added in £5bn for further policy changes. Firstly, there is a good chance that the Chancellor will choose to make the existing 5p ‘temporary’ cut in fuel duties permanent at a cost of £2bn a year. This is currently scheduled to be reversed on 1 April 2026, alongside the expected end of the annual freeze in fuel duties – a measure that, if continued, could cost a further £3 billion a year by 2029/30.

The government is also under significant pressure – from President Trump and other NATO allies in particular – to accelerate increases in the defence budget to meet the new NATO target for spending on defence and security of 3.5% of GDP. Although the NATO target includes capital expenditure (which is not part of the current budget surplus or deficit), we have included a proxy amount of £3bn a year by 2029/30 for additional operating expenditure on defence.

This brings the potential funding requirement to roughly £30 billion, if the Chancellor aims to maintain £10bn of headroom against her fiscal rule of achieving a current budget balance in the fourth year of the forecast.

Unfortunately, as the government has discovered over the past year, such a small margin – less than 0.3% of GDP – is hugely problematic. Relatively small changes in the OBR’s assumptions or in actual economic performance can easily use up all the headroom, leading (as we have seen) to endless speculation about what the Chancellor is going to have to do to bring the public finances back under control.

The Chancellor is therefore expected to provide herself with a bigger cushion to reduce the risk of having to come back to raise taxes for a third time. The chart thinks she is likely to choose to double the level of headroom as a minimum – from £10bn to £20bn – with some economic commentators suggesting that an even larger cushion might be necessary.

The IFS point out in their report that extra headroom may be needed in any case because of the Chancellor’s second ‘debt’ fiscal rule, which is for public sector net financial liabilities to be falling as a share of GDP by the fourth year of the fiscal forecasts. Although she could cut the capital expenditure already budgeted for 2029/30 to remain within the fiscal rule, the Chancellor has said she wishes to avoid doing so.

Whatever happens, it looks like the Autumn Budget 2025 is going to be a pretty big deal.

This chart was originally published by ICAEW.

ICAEW chart of the week: Retail sales in Great Britain

My chart for ICAEW this week breaks down the £529bn of sales made by retailers in England, Wales and Scotland in the year to September 2025.

Retail sales are a core component of the economy, and my chart for ICAEW this week takes a look at the total amount of sales made by retailers over the past year.

According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), total sales of £529bn in Great Britain between October 2025 and September 2026 comprised £207bn (39%) of food, drinks and tobacco, £80bn (15%) of household goods, £75bn (14%) of clothing and footwear, £46bn (9%) in automotive fuel, and £121bn (23%) in other retail categories.

This £529bn in sales is equivalent to around £10bn a week on average and represents around 18% of overall economic activity in England, Wales and Scotland by value.

The ONS also analyses the data by type of store, with £410bn and £119bn generated in sales by large (100 employees or more) and small (99 employees or fewer) retail businesses respectively, while around £132bn or 25% of retail sales are now transacted online.

Supermarkets and other ‘predominately’ food stores made sales of £209bn last year (of which £20bn or 10% was online), while textile, clothing and footwear stores recorded £57bn (£16bn or 28% online), household goods stores recorded £37bn (£9bn or 24% online), department and other non-specialised stores recorded £39bn (£10bn or 26% online) and all other stores generated £70bn (£15bn or 21% online). Internet, mail order, and other ‘non-store’ retailers (such as market stalls) made £70bn (£62bn online). None of the £46bn in petrol and diesel sales were reported as being online.

According to the ONS, seasonally adjusted retail sales volumes in September 2025 are at their highest level since 2022 but 1.6% lower than in February 2020 prior to the pandemic.

This decline in the amount of ‘stuff’ being bought by British consumers despite a growing population is primarily a reflection of the squeeze on household budgets from the cost-of-living crisis combined with relatively weak growth in household incomes over the last few years.

The concern for many retailers in the next few weeks will therefore be not only what business tax measures might be announced in the Autumn Budget 2025, but also the effect that other tax measures might have on household disposable incomes and, hence, the ability and willingness of consumers to spend their money in the shops and online.

This chart was originally published by ICAEW.

ICAEW chart of the week: Households in England

The recent passing of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 prompts my chart of the week for ICAEW to take a look at just how many households there are in England.

The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 was given royal assent on 27 October, providing a range of new protections for tenants of private sector landlords in England. Its passing prompted us to ask just how many private sector tenancies will be affected by these changes once they are introduced into law.

My chart for ICAEW this week illustrates that there were 24.7m households in England in 2023/24 according to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Of these, 4.0m, or 16% of households, were in social housing (2.5m housing association and 1.5m local authority properties), 4.7m, or 19%, were tenants of private sector landlords, 7.3m, or 30%, were in properties owned with a mortgage, and 8.7m or 35% were in properties owned outright.

The chart also shows a breakdown of the 8.6m families with children (1.6m social renters, 1.8m private renters, 3.7m mortgaged owners and 1.5m outright owners), 7.0m couples with no children (0.4m, 1.0m, 2.1m and 3.5m respectively), and 9.1m one person or shared households (2.0m, 1.9m, 1.5m and 3.7m respectively).

The 8.6m family households comprised 5.7m couples with children, 2.5m lone parents with children, and 0.4m two or more family households, while the 9.1m one person or shared households comprised 8.5m one person households (4.5m female and 4.0m male) and 0.6m shared households containing two or more lone persons.

The 4.0m social renter households, 4.7m private renters, 7.3m mortgaged owners and 8.7m outright owners comprise 8.6m, 10.7m, 19.6m and 16.0m people respectively – the latter reflecting the older demographic where we see more outright ownership, fewer children and a higher proportion living alone.

For both tenants and their landlords, the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 will result in significant changes to their contractual arrangements and legal rights. The measures include new restrictions on no fault evictions, the end of fixed-term tenancies, limitations on rent increases, a new ombudsman, a requirement on landlords to register their properties, more rights to have pets, higher property standards, deadlines for rectifying hazards, an end to discrimination against those on benefits or who have children, an end to post-advertisement bidding wars, strengthened local authority enforcement, and the ability for rent repayment orders to be recovered from superior landlords.

This chart was originally published by ICAEW.

ICAEW chart of the week: US federal finances FY25

My chart for ICAEW this week looks at how the US federal government is funded and what it spends its money on.

The US federal government financial year ends in September each year and our chart this week takes a look at the provisional monthly receipts and payments statement for September 2025 (FY25).

According to preliminary numbers from the Bureau of the Fiscal Service, part of the US Department of the Treasury, the US federal government collected $5.2tn (17% of GDP or $1,275 per person per month) in taxes during the year ended 30 September 2025 and paid out $7.0tn (23% of GDP or £1,710 per person per month).

The shortfall of $1.8tn (6% of GDP or £435 per person per month) was funded by borrowing.

As our chart illustrates, the federal government’s tax receipts of $5.2tn comprised $1.7tn (6% of GDP or $425 per person per month) from social security contributions, $2.7tn (9% or $655) from income taxes, $0.5tn (1% or $110) from corporate taxes, and $0.3tn (1% or $85) from customs duties, excise taxes, and miscellaneous taxes.

Outlays comprised $1.6tn (5% of GDP or $385 per person per month) on social security programmes (principally pensions and unemployment insurance), $3.0tn (10% or $745) on health care programmes and subsidies (principally Medicare for retirees, Medicaid for children, the poor and those with disabilities, and Affordable Care Act subsidies for lower earners), $1.0tn (3% or $235) on net debt interest, $0.9tn (3% or $225) on US Department of Defense military expenditures, and $0.5tn (2% or $120) on the federal government excluding the military.

These numbers are (for the most part) cash receipts and payments. The US federal government’s accrual-based audited financial statements, prepared in accordance with standards issued by the US Governmental Accounting Standards Board, are normally published in the following February.

They may also seem quite low when compared with the UK’s public finances for example, but that is primarily because they exclude receipts and payments by the states, counties and city governments that provide most public services in the US in addition to their own welfare programmes.

Despite that, it may still be surprising to see how little the federal government costs once welfare programmes, debt interest and military programmes are excluded – just $0.5tn or $120 per person, less than 2% of GDP. This is the result of benefits of scale, a strong economy and the decentralised nature of government in the US.

Having said that, policymakers are concerned about rising debt interest and a widening deficit, which is expected to grow further in 2026 as the current administration’s tax cuts take effect and outweigh the planned spending reductions for FY26.

For more information about the US federal finances, visit FiscalData on the US Department of the Treasury website.

This chart was originally published by ICAEW.

ICAEW chart of the week: Tax burden rising

My chart for ICAEW this week shows how tax receipts as a proportion of national income have risen significantly since the turn of the century, begging the question as to whether taxes are too high or the UK economy is too small?

ICAEW chart of the week: Table burden rising.

A line chart with a solid purple line for tax receipts/GDP (three-year moving average) and a dotted teal line for total receipts/GDP (three-year moving average).

Tax receipts/GDP (solid purple line) zigs and zags between 32% in 1999/00 to 32% in 2004/05 to 33% in 2009/10 to 33% in 2014/15 to 33% in 2019/20 to 35% in 2024/25 to 38% in 2029/30.

Total receipts/GDP (dashed teal line) broadly tracks the purple from 35% in 1999/00 to 42% in 2029/30.

17 Oct 2025. Chart by Martin Wheatcroft FCA.
Source: OBR, 'Public finances databank: Sep 2025'.

My chart of the week for ICAEW illustrates how tax receipts as a percentage of GDP averaged 32% over the three years to 1999/00, 32% to 2004/05, 33% to 2009/10, 33% to 2014/15, 33% to 2019/20, 35% to 2024/25 and are projected to hit 38% over the three years to 2029/30, based on data from the Office for Budget Responsibilities’ public finances databank for September 2025.

The chart also shows how total receipts including non-tax income averaged 35% in the three years to 1999/00 and a projected 42% to 2029/30.

The one caveat to these percentages is that they do not reflect recent revisions by the Office for National Statistics that increase GDP by the order of 1% across multiple years, which will cause the reported percentages to be a little smaller when they are recalculated by the OBR for the Autumn Budget 2025.

Either way, a projected rise of approaching 20% in the proportion of the economy taken in taxes since the end of last century is pretty significant, even if the projected tax burden will be lower than those of many countries in Europe.

The chart doesn’t show public spending as a proportion of national income. This averaged 35% of GDP over the three years to 1999/00 and 45% of GDP over the three years to 2024/25, with more people growing older driving up the cost of pensions, health and social care significantly and a much higher bill for debt interest being two of the main factors driving up costs.

Public spending as a share of national income is projected to fall slightly to an average of 44% over the three years to 2029/30 as the government tries to reduce the shortfall between total receipts and spending (aka the deficit) through a combination of higher taxes (as announced in the Autumn Budget 2024) and some constraint in public spending over the next five years.

Unfortunately, a lack of fiscal headroom, a disappointing economic outlook, and cost pressures are now expected to lead the Chancellor to increase taxes even further in the Autumn Budget 2025. This suggests that taxes may be too low, at least if the government is to deliver the level of public services and welfare provision it is committed to.

If taxes are not too high, then the problem must be that the economy is too small. This is evidenced by low productivity growth since the financial crisis and successive economic shocks that have together resulted in a UK economy that has not grown at anywhere near the speed it might have.

If tax cuts are unlikely, at least in the medium-term, the principal route to reduce the tax burden must be to drive up economic growth, as called for in ICAEW’s business growth campaign. This calls for the government to focus on business growth by addressing the many factors that make it too uncertain, too difficult and too expensive to do business in the UK.

This chart was originally published by ICAEW.

ICAEW chart of the week: The cost of (government) borrowing

My chart for ICAEW this week looks at the cost of government borrowing by country based on 10-year government bond yields.

The calculated yield on 10-year UK government gilts on Wednesday 8 October 2025 at around 13:00 BST was 4.7% – the effective interest rate the government would need to pay if it had issued new debt at that time.

As my chart of the week for ICAEW illustrates, the UK now has the highest government borrowing cost among developed countries, compared with Switzerland 0.2%, Japan 1.7%, Germany 2.7%, Canada 3.2%, Spain 3.2%, Italy 3.5%, France 3.5%, the US 4.1% and Australia 4.4%.

With debt interest running at around 10% of total public expenditure, the cost of borrowing is a major issue for the Chancellor as she puts together the Autumn Budget 2025.

Reasons for the relatively high borrowing costs in the UK include persistently high inflation, growing public debt, an uncertain economic and fiscal outlook, the Bank of England’s quantitative tightening programme of selling its quantitative easing gilt holdings into the market, and reduced demand from debt investors.

This contrasts with Switzerland, where a strong currency, low public debt (around 37% of GDP), low inflation, and a lower-than-expected forecast for the fiscal deficit in 2025 permits the government to pay almost nothing to borrow at the moment.

Eurozone countries also pay less than the UK, even those with high debt levels such as Italy and France, with lower inflation (2.0% vs 3.8% in the UK in August 2025) being a major driver of lower yields on 10-year government bonds. Canada, with much stronger public finances than most developed countries but rising inflation and trade concerns, is paying more than Germany but approximately the same as Spain.

The US is currently paying 4.1% for new federal government borrowing, with rising inflation and growing fiscal deficits all contributing to a higher risk profile for debt investors. Australia is paying slightly more than the US despite much stronger public finances as it struggles to bring down inflation (3.0% in the year to August 2025).

Not shown on the chart are other countries with lower 10-year borrowing costs than the UK such as Singapore at 1.8%, the Netherlands at 2.8%, South Korea at 2.9%, Portugal at 3.1%, Greece at 3.3%, and New Zealand at 4.2%. There also countries with higher 10-year borrowing costs, including India at 6.5%, Mexico at 8.8%, and Brazil at 14.0%.

For the UK, the headlines have tended to focus on the 5.5% yield payable on 30-year government gilts, but in practice the Debt Management Office is currently issuing very little long-dated debt. The majority of gilts by value are being issued for less than 10 years, reflecting an expectation (or hope) that medium- and long-term borrowing costs will come down over the next few years as inflation returns to target and the volume of quantitative tightening slows.

A substantial proportion of the £3.2tn that the UK public sector current owes (£2.9tn after deducting cash and liquid financial assets) was borrowed when interest rates were much lower, meaning the government is currently paying somewhere in the region of 3% on its debts overall.

Unfortunately, the need to issue £1.3tn in new debt over the next five years (around half to refinance existing debt as it falls due for repayment and another half to finance planned fiscal deficits, lending and working capital requirements) means that the average weighted effective interest rate on UK debt is likely to increase even as the Bank of England base rate (currently 4.0%) is expected to come down.

This chart was originally published by ICAEW.

ICAEW chart of the week: GDP revisions

My chart for ICAEW this week looks at how a large upward revision in GDP for 2024/25 translates into a relatively modest 0.1 percentage point increase in economic growth per year since the pandemic.

On 30 September, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) published its latest quarterly GDP statistics for April to June 2025. The headline pointed to a slowdown in quarterly economic growth to 0.3% over that period, down from 0.7% growth in the first quarter of the year. However, more significant was a large revision that increased reported GDP for the year to March 2025 (2024/25) by 1.2%, taking it from £2,891bn to £2,925bn.

The ONS also revised GDP for previous years, including a 0.8% upward revision in reported GDP for 2019/20 from £2,241bn to £2,258bn.

My chart for ICAEW this week illustrates how this resulted in the increase in GDP over the five years to 2024/25, going from an average of 5.2% a year in GDP before revisions, to 5.3% a year after revisions. As inflation is similar before and after the revisions (at an average of 4.3% per year), this means that average annual real economic growth over the past five years has been revised up by 0.1 percentage points from 0.9% a year to 1.0% a year.

While the effect on economic growth over the past five years has been relatively modest, it will knock off at least a percentage point from the public sector net debt to GDP ratio – all without the Chancellor needing to lift a finger.

The statistical revisions reflect the typical process of updating historical numbers for more recent data, such as corporation tax returns that reported higher corporate profits than originally estimated and higher estimates of educational output, business inflation and output of pharmaceutical companies. However, the largest revision was a methodology change that increased the estimate of investment in research and development by approximately 1 percentage point of GDP, bringing the UK more in line with comparable countries in the developed world.

Unfortunately, even with this statistical boost to research and development, the UK still underperforms compared with the US, where economic growth since before the pandemic has been more than twice as fast, as well as lagging (albeit slightly) behind the Eurozone.

ICAEW’s business growth campaign has identified how it has become increasingly too uncertain, too difficult and too expensive to do business in the UK and calls for fundamental reform of tax, regulation and economic policy to support stronger business growth going forward.

Read more in ICAEW’s recommendations on how we can tackle the barriers to improving productivity in our business growth campaign.

For more detail about GDP and the revisions the ONS has made, visit GDP quarterly national accounts: April to June 2025.

This chart was originally published by ICAEW.

ICAEW chart of the week: Productivity

My chart for ICAEW this week looks at how productivity growth has slowed significantly over the past quarter of a century and asks what can be done to turn it around.

One of the biggest challenges facing the UK economy is the decline in productivity growth over the past quarter of a century as illustrated by my chart of the week for ICAEW. This shows how the average annual change over five years in quarterly output per hours worked in March 1980 was the equivalent of 2.1% a year higher than it was in the quarter to March 1975, five years earlier.

The chart also shows how output per hour rose by an annual average of 3.0% a year to March 1985, 1.7% to March 1990, 2.5% to March 1995, and 2.8% to March 2000.

Unfortunately, productivity growth has declined since then with quarterly output per hour increasing by an average of 1.6% a year over the five years to March 2005, 0.8% to March 2010, 0.2% to March 2015, 0.8% to March 2020 and 0.3% to March 2025.

These percentages go a long way to summarising how the UK economy has stalled since the start of the century, especially from the start of the financial crisis in 2007 through the austerity years, Brexit, the pandemic and the energy and cost-of-living crisis. We are producing less value per hour worked even as the population has grown and technology has further advanced.

While the crises we have gone through may partly explain some of the reduction in historical productivity growth over the last quarter of a century, the big question worrying many economists is why productivity has not returned to anywhere close to the levels seen before the turn of the century, or to even to those seen in the USA where, until recently, productivity growth has continued to hold up despite everything.

The Office for Budget Responsibility’s (OBR) most recent economic and fiscal forecast published in March 2025 was based on a central assumption of productivity growth averaging around 1.0% a year over five years to March 2030, significantly lower than the levels seen in the last century. There have been suggestions that the OBR intends to reduce this assumption when it updates its forecasts for the Autumn Budget 2025 in November, adding to the Chancellor’s headaches when she arrives at the despatch box.

One reason for the much lower levels of productivity growth this century may be the demographic change that has resulted in a much higher proportion of the population in retirement and a much older workforce on average. Another may be a question about whether the advent of the smart phone and ‘always on’ connectivity to the office has actually hindered rather than helped people be productive. A further reason could be the increasingly dire state of the public finances with debt rising from less than 35% of GDP in March 2005 to close to 95% of GDP, hampering the government’s ability to deliver the public services we need to thrive, in addition to raising the tax burden to historically high levels.

However, many of the reasons are likely to be driven by the challenges identified by ICAEW’s business growth campaign. This has identified how it has become increasingly too uncertain, too difficult, and too expensive to do business in the UK and calls for fundamental reform of tax, regulation and economic policy to support stronger business growth going forward.

Read more in ICAEW’s recommendations on how we can tackle the barriers to improving productivity in ICAEW’s business growth campaign.

This chart was originally published by ICAEW.

ICAEW chart of the week: Business confidence dips further

My chart for ICAEW this week looks at how business confidence has entered negative territory, driven by uncertainty about both the economic outlook and potential tax rises.

ICAEW chart of the week: Business confidence

A step chart showing the quarter-by-quarter change in the ICAEW Business Confidence Monitor Index between Q2 2023, Q2 2024 and Q2 2025.

Q2 2023 index: +6.1 positive business confidence.
Q3 2023 change: -3.2.
Q4 2023 change: +1.3.
Q1 2024 change: +10.2.
Q2 2024 change: +2.3.
=
Q2 2024 index: +16.7 positive business confidence.
Q3 2024 change: -2.3.
Q4 2024 change: -14.2.
Q1 2025 change: -3.2.
Q2 2025 change: -1.2.
=
Q2 2025 index: -4.2 negative business confidence.

19 Feb 2025. Chart by Martin Wheatcroft FCA. Design by Sunday.

Source: ICAEW, 'Business Confidence Monitor, Q2 2025'.

One of the major themes of ICAEW’s growth campaign is how uncertainty for businesses can be tackled in order to improve business sentiment and hence the appetite of businesses to invest.

My chart for ICAEW this week highlights how business confidence as measured by the ICAEW Business Confidence Monitor (BCM) Index rose from +6.1 in the second quarter 2023 to +16.7 a year later, before crashing over the past year to -4.2 in Q2 2025.

The +6.1 score in Q2 2023 was a significant improvement over the -20.1 registered half a year earlier in Q4 2022 at the height of the cost-of-living crisis. It was also better than the +4.1 pre-pandemic average and +5.0 overall average measured by the BCM Index.

As the chart shows, the index declined in Q3 2023 by -3.2 (to 2.9) but then rose by 1.3 in Q4 2023 (to 4.2), by 10.2 in Q1 2024 (to 14.4), and by a further 2.3 in the second quarter of 2024 to reach a peak of 16.7 following the general election and the consequent change in government.

Unfortunately, business sentiment has declined rapidly over the past year, with the BCM Index falling by 2.3 in Q3 2024 (back to 14.4) and by a huge 14.2 in the fourth quarter last year (to 0.2, only just positive). The index turned negative this year with a decline of 3.2 in Q1 2025 (to -3.0) and then a further fall of 1.2 in Q2 2025 to reach a score of -4.2 in the most recent calendar quarter.

According to the BCM commentary, the business sentiment score of -4.2 in Q2 2025 marked a fourth consecutive decline during a period of heightened global uncertainty and weakening UK activity. Confidence among exporters was particularly downbeat, falling into negative territory for the first time in almost three years.

Domestic sales growth had slowed during the second quarter and businesses had lowered their expectations about domestic and exports sales for the coming year. Concerns about customer demand and competition in the marketplace had risen sharply, while regulatory requirements continued to be the second biggest challenge for businesses.

The tax burden remained the greatest growing challenge in Q2 2025, with the reported rate close to the survey high, and these concerns rose to new record highs in some key sectors.

Expectations for employment growth in the year ahead dropped to the lowest level since Q3 2020, but businesses expected salary growth to continue to ease, adding to the more positive outlook for inflationary pressures than reported in the previous quarter.

Confidence declined in most sectors surveyed and sentiment remained highly unequal, with confidence most negative in manufacturing and engineering, and retail and wholesale; and most positive in information and communication, and construction.

More detail about business confidence by sector and by regions is available in the ICAEW Business Confidence Monitor section of the ICAEW website.

More detail on how it is too difficult, expensive and uncertain to do business in the UK, and ICAEW’s call for the government to do what it can to streamline regulations, reduce unnecessary costs, and provide businesses with the confidence that they need to invest, is available on ICAEW’s growth campaign.

This chart was originally published by ICAEW.