Remember “securonomics”? It was the buzzword Rachel Reeves gave to her economic philosophy back before the election.

The idea was that in the late 2020s, the old ideas about the way we run the economy would or should give way to a new model.

For a long time, we ignored where something was made and by whom and just ordered it in from the cheapest source. For a long time, we ignored the security consequences of where we got our energy from. The upshot of these assumptions was that over time, we allowed our manufacturing base to become hollowed out, unable to compete with cheap imports from China. We allowed our energy system to become ever more dependent on cheap Russian gas.

Money blog: Supermarket puts buying limit on new Lindt version of viral chocolate

The whole point of securonomics was that it matters where something is made and who owns it. And not just that – that revitalising manufacturing and energy could help revitalise “left-behind” corners of the economy, places like the Midlands and the North East.

Back when she came up with the coinage, Joe Biden was in power and was pumping billions of dollars into the US economy via the Inflation Reduction Act – a scheme designed to encourage green tech investment. So securonomics looked a little like the British version of Bidenomics.

That’s the key point: the “security” part of “securonomics” was mostly about energy security and supply chain security rather than about defence.

But when Rachel Reeves became chancellor, it looked for a period as if securonomics was dead on arrival. Most glaringly, Labour dramatically trimmed back the ambition and scale of its green investment plans.

But roll on a year or so, and we all know what happened next.

A new era

The Democrats lost, Donald Trump won, came into office and swiftly triggered a chain reaction that panicked everyone in Europe into investing more in defence. Today, much of the focus among investors is not on net zero but on defence.

All of which is to say, securonomics might be about to resurface, but in a markedly different guise. In the spring statement, I expect the chancellor to bring back this buzzword, but this time, the emphasis will not be on green tech but on something else: the defence sector.

Expect to hear about weapons

This time around, the chancellor will say securonomics 2.0, which is to say government investment in the defence sector will also bring an economic windfall, as old naval ports like Plymouth and Portsmouth see regeneration. This time, the focus will not be on solar and wind but on submarines and weapons.

Whether this rendition of securonomics is any more successful than the last remains to be seen. For the chancellor hardly has an enormous amount of money left to invest. While this week’s event is billed as a mere forecast update, the reality, when you take a step back, is more serious.

Read more:
What do you need to know about the spring statement

The chancellor will have to acknowledge that, without remedial action, she would have broken her fiscal rules. She will have to confirm significant changes to policy to rebuild the “headroom” against these rules. These will stop short of tax rises. Instead, the spending envelope in future years will be trimmed (think 1.1% or so spending increases rather than 1.3% or 1.4%). Those welfare reforms announced last week will bring in a bit of extra cash. And thanks to an accounting quirk, the decision (announced a few weeks ago) to shift development spending into defence will also give her a bit more space against her rules.

The austerity question

But even these changes will raise further awkward questions: is this or is this not austerity? Certainly, for some departments, that spending cut will involve further significant sacrifices. Are those benefits gains really achievable, and at what cost? And, most ominously, what if the chancellor has to come back to parliament in another six months and admit she’s broken her rules all over again?

The return of securonomics might be the theme she wants to focus on in the coming months – but that, too, depends on having money to invest – and the UK’s fiscal position looks as tight as ever.