Budget 2024: How fiscal rules are impeding long-term investments – and what Rachel Reeves can do about it

Published

9 months ago

October 6, 2024

admin

Before we get onto the budget and what Rachel Reeves might do to fiddle her fiscal rules and give herself a little more room to spend, I want you to ponder, for a moment, a recent report from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR).

This wasn’t one of those big OBR reports that get lots of attention – such as the documents and numbers it produces alongside each budget, full of the forecasts and analyses on the state of the economy and the public finances.

Instead, it was a chin-scratchy working paper that asked the question: if the government invests in something – say, a road or a railway, or a new school building – how long does it generally take for that investment to come good?

The answer, according to the report, was: actually quite a long time. Imagine the government spends a chunk of money – 1% of national income – on investment this year. In five years’ time that investment will only have created 0.4 per cent of GDP. In other words, in net terms, it’s costed us 0.6% of GDP.

But, and this is the important thing, look a little further off. A high-speed rail network is designed to last decades, and as those decades go on, it gradually improves people’s lives – think of the time saved by each commuter each day – small amounts each day, but they gradually mount up. So while the investment costs money in the short run, in the longer run, the benefits gradually mount.

The OBR’s calculation was that while a 1% of GDP public investment would only deliver 0.4% of GDP in five years, by the time 10 or 12 years had passed, the investment would be responsible for approaching 1% of GDP. In other words, it would have broken even. The money put in at the start would be fully earned back in benefits.

And by the time that investment was 50 years old, it would have delivered a whopping 2.5% of GDP in economic benefits. Future generations would benefit enormously – or so said the OBR’s sums.

Having laid that out, I want you now to ponder the fiscal rules Rachel Reeves is confronted with at this, her first budget. Most pressingly, ponder the so-called debt rule, which insists that the chancellor must have the national debt – well, technically it’s “public sector net debt excluding Bank of England interventions” – falling within five years.

There is, it’s worth underlining at this point, nothing fundamental about this rule. Reeves inherited it from the Conservative Party, who only dreamed it up a few years ago, after COVID. Back before then, there have been countless rules that were supposed to prevent the national debt falling and, frankly, rarely ever succeeded.

But since Reeves wanted everyone to know, ahead of the election, just how serious Labour was about managing the public finances, she decided she would keep those Tory rules. One can understand the politics of this; the economics, less so – then again, I confess I’ve always been a bit sceptical about all these rules.

The upshot is, to meet this rule, she needs the national debt to be falling between the fourth and fifth year of the OBR’s five-year forecast. And according to the last OBR forecasts, which date back to Jeremy Hunt‘s last budget, it is. But not by much: only by £8.9bn. If that number rings a bell, it is because this is the much-vaunted, but not much understood, “headroom” figure a lot of people in Westminster like to drone on about.

And – if you’re taking these rules very literally, which everyone in Westminster seems to be doing – then the takeaway is that the chancellor really doesn’t have much room left to spend in the coming budget. She only has £8.9bn extra leeway to borrow!

Every spending decision – whether on investment, on the NHS, on benefits or indeed on anything else, happens in the shadow of this terrifying £8.9bn headroom figure. And since the chancellor has already explained, in her “black hole” event earlier this year, that the Conservatives promised a lot of extra spending they hadn’t budgeted for – not, perhaps, the entire £22bn figure she likes to cite but still a fair chunk – then it stands to reason there’s really “no money left”.

Or is there? So far we’ve been taking the fiscal rules quite literally but at this stage it’s worth asking the question: why? First off, there’s nothing gospel about these rules. There’s no tablet of stone that says the national debt needs to be falling in five years’ time.

Second, remember what we learned from that OBR paper. Sometimes investments in things can actually generate more money than they cost. Yet fixating on a debt rule means the money you borrow to fund those investments is always counted as a negative – not a positive. And since the debt rule only looks five years into the future, you only ever see the cost and not the breakeven point.

Third, the debt rule used by this government actually focuses on a measure of the national debt which might not necessarily be the right one. That might sound odd until you realise there are actually quite a few different ways of expressing the scale of UK national debt.

The measure we currently use excludes the Bank of England, which seemed, a few years ago, to be a sensible thing to do. The Bank has been engaged in a policy called quantitative easing which involves buying and selling lots of government debt – which distorts the national debt. Perhaps it’s best to exclude it.

Except that recently those Bank of England interventions have actually been serving to drive up losses for the state. I won’t go into it in depth here for risk of causing a headache, but the upshot is most economists think focusing on a debt measure which is mostly being affected right now not by government decisions but by the central bank reversing a monetary policy exercise seems pretty perverse.

In other words, there’s a very strong argument that instead of focusing on the ex-BoE measure of net debt, the fiscal rules should instead be focusing on the overall measure of net debt. And here’s the thing: when you look at that measure of net debt, lo and behold it’s falling more between year four and five. In other words, there’s considerably more headroom: just under £25bn rather than just under £9bn based on that other Bank-excluding measure of debt.

Might Reeves declare, at the budget or in the run-up, that it makes far more sense to focus on overall PSND from now on? Quite plausibly. And while in one respect it’s a fiddle, in her defence it’s a fiddle from one silly rule to an ever so slightly less silly rule.

It would also mean she has more room to borrow to invest – if that’s what she chooses to do. But it doesn’t resolve the deeper issue: that both of these measures fixate on the short-term cost of debt without taking into account the long-term benefits of investment – back to that OBR paper.

If Reeves is determined to stick to the, some would say arbitrary, five-year deadline to get debt falling but wants to incorporate some measure of the benefits of investment, she could always choose one of two other measures for this rule.

She could focus on something called “public sector net financial liabilities” or “public sector net worth”. Both of these measures include some of the assets owned by the state as well as its debts – the upshot being that hopefully they reflect a little more of the benefits of investing more money.

The problem with these measures is they are subject to quite a lot of revision when, say, accountants change their opinion about the value of the national road or rail network. So some would argue these measures are prone to more volatility and fiddling than simple net debt.

Even so, these measures would dramatically transform the “headroom” picture. All of a sudden, Reeves would have over £60bn of headroom to play with. More than enough to splurge on loads of investments without breaking her fiscal rule.

There’s one other change to the rule that would probably make more sense than any of the above: changing that five-year deadline to a 10 or even 15-year deadline. At that kind of horizon, a pound spent on a decent investment would suddenly look net positive for the economy rather than a drain.

Whether Reeves wants to do any of the above depends, ultimately, on how she wants to begin her term in office. Does she want to establish herself as a tough, fiscally conservative Chancellor – with a view, perhaps, to relaxing in later years? Or does she feel it’s more important to begin investing early, so some of the potential benefits might be obvious within a decade or so?

Really, there’s nothing in the economics to stop her choosing either path. Certainly not a set of fiscal rules which are riddled with flaws.

Politics

Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill in overtime as senators jam crypto clauses

Published

2 hours ago

July 1, 2025

admin

Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill in overtime as senators jam crypto clauses

US senators are in a marathon vote-a-rama over amendments to Donald Trump’s massive tax and spending bill, with one lawmaker bidding to include tax cuts for crypto.

Politics

Culture secretary Lisa Nandy hits out at BBC over Glastonbury controversy

Published

2 hours ago

July 1, 2025

admin

Criminal investigation launched into Glastonbury performances of Kneecap and Bob Vylan

The culture secretary has claimed there is “a problem of leadership” at the BBC, as the controversy over Bob Vylan’s Glastonbury performance deepens.

Lisa Nandy criticised the corporation over its decision not to pull the livestream after the band’s frontman shouted “death, death to the IDF” – referring to the Israel Defence Forces – on Saturday.

A criminal investigation has been launched into the Glastonbury performances of both Bob Vylan and Kneecap after the police reviewed footage.

Ms Nandy condemned the “appalling and unacceptable scenes” at Glastonbury and said the government would not tolerate antisemitism.

She said she had called BBC director-general Tim Davie after the broadcast of Bob Vylan’s set to find out why it had aired, and why the feed had not been cut.

“I expect answers to these questions without delay,” she said.

Later, when asked in the Commons about the BBC’s editorial processes and who would be held accountable, Ms Nandy replied: “When you have one editorial failure, it’s something that must be gripped. When you have several, it becomes a problem of leadership.”

Ms Nandy said she had spoken to members of the Jewish community, including attendees at Glastonbury, who said they were concerned by imagery and slogans and ended up creating their own “safe space”.

Mr Davie has been facing calls for his resignation.

Yesterday, drummer Bobbie Vylan released a video statement on Instagram – saying politicians who have spent time criticising the band should be “utterly ashamed” for giving “room” to this over other issues.

The punk rap duo have had their US visas revoked and been dropped by their US representative, United Talent Agency.

He also addressed what was said on stage, saying: “Regardless of how it was said, calling for an end to the slaughter of innocents is never wrong. To civilians of Israel, understand this anger is not directed at you, and don’t let your government persuade you that a call against an army is a call against the people.”

Shortly after it was posted, the video was no longer available to view.

Israel denies targeting civilians in its war in Gaza.

During Kneecap’s set, one member suggested on stage starting a “riot” outside his bandmate’s forthcoming court appearance, before clarifying he meant “support”.

In a statement, Avon and Somerset Police said that after reviewing footage of the performances of Kneecap and Bob Vylan, further enquiries are required and a criminal investigation is now being undertaken.

“A senior detective has been appointed to lead this investigation,” a spokesperson said. “This has been recorded as a public order incident at this time while our enquiries are at an early stage.”

The force said the investigation will be “evidence-led and will closely consider all appropriate legislation, including relating to hate crimes”.

“We have received a large amount of contact in relation to these events from people across the world and recognise the strength of public feeling,” it added. “There is absolutely no place in society for hate.”

What happened?

During Bob Vylan’s set, the duo performed in front of a screen that showed several messages, including one that said Israel’s actions in Gaza amount to “genocide”.

Bobby Vylan also led chants of “death to the IDF”.

The set was live streamed by the BBC as part of its Glastonbury coverage, but has not been made available on demand.

Politicians including the prime minister have criticised the performance. Glastonbury organiser Emily Eavis said the chants “crossed a line” and that there was no place at the festival for “antisemitism, hate speech or incitement to violence”.

A BBC spokesperson said the broadcaster respected freedom of expression “but stands firmly against incitement to violence”.

They added: “The antisemitic sentiments expressed by Bob Vylan were utterly unacceptable and have no place on our airwaves…

“The team were dealing with a live situation, but with hindsight we should have pulled the stream during the performance. We regret this did not happen.”

Media watchdog Ofcom said it was in talks with the BBC and that the broadcaster “clearly has questions to answer” over the stream.

Irish-language rap trio Kneecap were on stage afterwards. Before their appearance at the festival, there had been calls for Glastonbury to remove them from the bill – as rapper Liam Og O hAnnaidh (who performs as Mo Chara) is facing a terror charge, accused of displaying a flag in support of the proscribed group Hezbollah at a gig in London last November.

Glastonbury organisers kept them on the line-up, but the BBC chose not to stream their set live. An edited version was later made available on demand.

On stage, the band led chants of “f*** Keir Starmer”.

O hAnnaidh’s bandmate Naoise O Caireallain (Moglai Bap) said they would “start a riot outside the courts” for O hAnnaidh’s next appearance, before clarifying: “No riots, just love and support, and support for Palestine.”

Hundreds of people turned out in protest for his first court appearance earlier this month.

Bob Vylan were set to perform in Chicago, Brooklyn and Philadelphia in the autumn. They are due to perform at Radar Festival in Manchester on Saturday and Boardmasters, a surfing and music festival in Newquay, Cornwall, in August.

Sharing a statement on Instagram after the Glastonbury set, Bobby Vylan said: “Teaching our children to speak up for the change they want and need is the only way that we make this world a better place.

“As we grow older and our fire starts to possibly dim under the suffocation of adult life and all its responsibilities, it is incredibly important that we encourage and inspire future generations to pick up the torch that was passed to us.”

👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈

The war in Gaza started after Hamas militants launched attacks in Israel on 7 October 2023, killing 1,200 people and taking roughly 250 hostages.

More than 860 Israeli soldiers have been killed since the war began, more than 400 of them during the fighting in Gaza.

Israel’s offensive in Gaza has devastated the enclave and killed around 56,500 people, according to the Hamas-run health ministry, which does not differentiate between civilians and combatants, but says more than half of the dead are women and children.

Politics

Government accused of ‘stark’ contradiction over position on Gaza genocide allegations

Published

2 hours ago

July 1, 2025

admin

Government accused of 'stark' contradiction over position on Gaza genocide allegations

The government has won a long-running legal challenge about its decision to continue allowing the sale of spare parts for F-35 fighter jets to Israel, while suspending other arms licences over concerns about international humanitarian law in Gaza.

But a key part of its case has highlighted mixed messaging about its position on the risk of genocide in Gaza – and intensified calls for ministers to publish their own assessment on the issue.

PM braced for pivotal vote – politics latest

Lawyers acting for the government told judges “the evidence available does not support a finding of genocide” and “the government assessment was that…there was no serious risk of genocide occurring”.

Therefore, they argued, continuing to supply the F-35 components did not put the UK at risk of breaching the Genocide Convention.

This assessment has never been published or justified by ministers in parliament, despite numerous questions on the issue.

Some MPs argue its very existence contrasts with the position repeatedly expressed by ministers in parliament – that the UK is unable to give a view on allegations of genocide in Gaza, because the question is one for the international courts.

For example, just last week Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner told PMQs “it is a long-standing principle that genocide is determined by competent international courts and not by governments”.

‘The UK cannot sit on our hands’

Green MP Ellie Chowns said: “The government insists only an international court can judge whether genocide is occurring in Gaza, yet have somehow also concluded there is ‘no serious risk of genocide’ in Gaza – and despite my urging, refuse to publish the risk assessments which lead to this decision.

“Full transparency on these risk assessments should not be optional; it is essential for holding the government to account and stopping further atrocity.

“While Labour tie themselves in knots contradicting each other, families are starving, hospitals lie in ruins, and children are dying.

“The UK cannot sit on our hands waiting for an international court verdict when our legal duty under the Genocide Convention compels us to prevent genocide from occurring, not merely seek justice after the fact.”

‘Why are these assessments being made?’

“This contradiction at the heart of the government’s position is stark,” said Zarah Sultana MP, an outspoken critic of Labour’s approach to the conflict in Gaza, who now sits as an independent after losing the party whip last summer.

“Ministers say it’s not for them to determine genocide, that only international courts can do so. Yet internal ‘genocide assessments’ have clearly been made and used to justify continuing arms exports to Israel.

“If they have no view, why are these assessments being made? And if they do, why refuse to share them with parliament? This Labour government, in opposition, demanded the Tories publish their assessments. Now in office, they’ve refused to do the same.”

Judges at the High Court ultimately ruled the case was over such a “sensitive and political issue” it should be a matter for the government, “which is democratically accountable to parliament and ultimately to the electorate, not the court”.

Dearbhla Minogue, a senior lawyer at the Global Legal Action Network, and a solicitor for Al-Haq, the Palestinian human rights group which brought the case, said: “This should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the government, but rather a restrained approach to the separation of powers.

“The government’s disgraceful assessment that there is no risk of genocide has therefore evaded scrutiny in the courts, and as far as we know it still stands.”

What is the government’s position?

Government lawyers argued the decision not to ban the export of F-35 parts was due to advice from Defence Secretary John Healey, who said a suspension would impact the whole F-35 programme and have a “profound impact on international peace and security”.

The UK supplies F-35 component parts as a member of an international defence programme which produces and maintains the fighter jets.

As a customer of that programme, Israel can order from the pool of spare parts.

‘This washing of hands will no longer work’

Labour MP Richard Burgon said the ruling puts the government under pressure to clarify its position.

“This court ruling is very clear: only the government and parliament can decide if F-35 fighter jet parts – that can end up in Israel – should be sold,” he said.

“So the government can no longer pass the buck: it can stop these exports, or it can be complicit in Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

“On many issues they say it’s not for the government to decide, but it’s one for the international courts. This washing of hands will no longer work.”

Israel has consistently rejected any allegations of genocide.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu branded a recent UN report on the issue biased and antisemitic.

“Instead of focusing on the crimes against humanity and war crimes committed by the Hamas terrorist organisation… the United Nations once again chooses to attack the state of Israel with false accusations,” he said in a statement.

The UK government has not responded to requests for comment over its contrasting messaging to parliament and the courts over allegations of genocide.

But in response to the judgement, a spokesperson said: “The court has upheld this government’s thorough and lawful decision-making on this matter.

“This shows that the UK operates one of the most robust export control regimes in the world. We will continue to keep our defence export licensing under careful and continual review.

“On day one of this Government, the foreign secretary ordered a review into Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL).

“The review concluded that there was a clear risk that UK exports for the IDF (Israel Defence Forces) in the Gaza conflict might be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of IHL.

“In contrast to the last government, we took decisive action, stopping exports to the Israeli Defence Forces that might be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza.”