Show the Working

Make St George's and St David's Day public holidays

Reform UK · what the evidence says

An independent, source-checked look at Reform UK’s policy “Make St George's and St David's Day public holidays” — what it would actually do across the things that affect your life. Every claim below quotes the source behind it. How this works.

Prosperity & living standards — Hurts

minor · moderate confidence

Adding two bank holidays would likely cause a small but real drag on economic output each year, as lost productivity tends to outweigh the boost to hospitality and retail. The effect on living standards is modest and partially offset by well-being gains, but the net economic signal is negative.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether well-being and leisure gains translate into enough long-run productivity to offset the recurring annual output loss — evidence on this is contested and the long-run effect is poorly measured.

Our reading: The policy creates two new recurring bank holidays each year. The evidence base on the GDP cost of additional bank holidays is broadly consistent: a single additional day costs roughly £1.8–2.4bn in output, with the ONS observing a measurable GDP dip during such periods and real observed falls of 0.3–1.0% in the months they occur. While subsequent rebounds are noted, official figures show that consumer spending gains in retail and hospitality do not fully offset the productivity loss. That said, PwC-cited analysis (flagged: commercial source, not sole basis) suggests government estimates may overstate costs by up to 64% by omitting well-being benefits, and there is a plausible long-run channel through improved worker morale and productivity. The two new holidays would be recurring rather than one-off celebratory events, and evidence suggests 'special' event holidays may carry larger tourism benefits than routine ones — meaning the recurring version may yield smaller offsetting gains. England and Wales do have fewer holidays than the European average, so there is genuine headroom, but international comparison alone does not resolve the net effect. On balance, the measurable evidence points to a small net negative on output indicators year-on-year. The well-being offset is real but insufficiently evidenced to flip the verdict at population scale. The effect is minor — the per-holiday cost is modest relative to total GDP — and largely felt within a parliamentary term as the holidays would begin immediately. This is a minor worsening of the prosperity and living-standards aggregate, primarily through recurring productivity drag, with partial mitigation from hospitality/retail and well-being channels.

Community cohesion & belonging — Little effect

minor · low confidence

Making St George's and St David's Day bank holidays could boost national pride and shared celebration, but there is no solid evidence this translates into measurable improvements in social trust or community cohesion at population scale. The effect on belonging is speculative.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether national-day bank holidays actually increase inter-group trust and civic participation, or mainly benefit those who already identify strongly with the national symbol.

Our reading: The only evidence directly touching O15 is E16, which uses explicitly speculative language ('potentially fostering'). The policy does commit a concrete mechanism — a statutory bank holiday — but a mechanism being plausible is not the same as evidence it fires at scale. There is no cited evidence that national-day holidays measurably improve social trust surveys, reduce loneliness, increase civic participation, or reduce inter-group tension in comparable real-world cases. The policy frames its goal around English national identity specifically; while that could generate shared celebration, it could equally leave out residents who do not identify with that symbol — but there is no cited evidence on either side of that sub-question, so it cannot drive the verdict. Given the sole O15-relevant claim is speculative and no baseline cohesion data or comparable natural experiments are provided, the honest verdict is that any effect is likely minor at most, with low confidence. The direction is assessed as negligible rather than too-uncertain because there is no cited evidence of a material countervailing harm either — both sides lack grounding, and the mechanism's scale effect is simply undemonstrated.

Good work & fair pay — Mixed picture

minor · low confidence

Adding two new public holidays would give workers extra rest days, which can improve wellbeing and work-life balance, but most evidence suggests the overall economic cost in lost productivity outweighs the consumer spending boost — with some sectors winning and others losing. The net effect on pay and job security is small and genuinely uncertain.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether the wellbeing and productivity gains from extra rest days, plus sector-specific spending boosts, are large enough to offset the estimated £1.8–2.4 billion per-holiday GDP loss that official and independent estimates point to.

Our reading: Two new public holidays would give workers — especially those entitled to bank holidays — extra paid rest days, directly improving work-life balance and wellbeing. The evidence that bank holidays improve staff morale and long-run productivity is real but weakly quantified. On the other side, most official and independent estimates point to GDP losses of roughly £1.8–2.4 billion per extra holiday, predominantly from sectors like manufacturing and construction that cannot easily shift output. Hospitality and retail workers would likely see more hours and higher earnings on those days, but these gains are partial offsets, not full compensation. The net effect on O4 is therefore mixed: workers gain rest and wellbeing; some (hospitality, retail) gain earnings opportunities; others in output-dependent sectors may face income instability or business pressure on their employers. The magnitude is minor because two extra holidays per year represent a small increment to the existing eight, the GDP effects rebound within weeks, and the wellbeing benefit — though real — is modest at this scale. Confidence is low because the evidence on net economic impact is genuinely contested, measurement is acknowledged as difficult by the ONS, and the long-run productivity return from improved wellbeing is unquantified.