Budget 2024: How fiscal rules are impeding long-term investments – and what Rachel Reeves can do about it
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.
Read more from Sky News:
Abolishing national insurance ‘could take several parliaments’
UK has no ‘credible’ plan to fund military equipment
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.
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
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.
Rachel Reeves has said she is determined to “defy” forecasts that suggest she will face a multibillion-pound black hole in next month’s budget.
Writing in The Guardian, the chancellor argued the “foundations of Britain’s economy remain strong” – and rejected claims the country is in a permanent state of decline.
Reports have suggested the Office for Budget Responsibility is expected to downgrade its productivity growth forecast by about 0.3 percentage points.
Rachel Reeves. PA file pic
That means the Treasury will take in less tax than expected over the coming years – and this could leave a gap of up to £40bn in the country’s finances.
Ms Reeves wrote she would not “pre-empt” these forecasts, and her job “is not to relitigate the past or let past mistakes determine our future”.
“I am determined that we don’t simply accept the forecasts, but we defy them, as we already have this year. To do so means taking necessary choices today, including at the budget next month,” the chancellor added.
She also pointed to five interest rate cuts, three trade deals with major economies and wages outpacing inflation as evidence Labour has made progress since the election.
Speculation is growing that Ms Reeves may break a key manifesto pledge by raising income tax or national insurance during the budget on 26 November.
Read more from Sky News:
What tax rises and spending cuts could Reeves announce?
Start-ups warn the chancellor over budget tax bombshell
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Chancellor faces tough budget choices
Although her article didn’t address this, she admitted “our country and our economy continue to face challenges”.
Her opinion piece said: “The decisions I will take at the budget don’t come for free, and they are not easy – but they are the right, fair and necessary choices.”
Yesterday, Sky’s deputy political editor Sam Coates reported that Ms Reeves is unlikely to raise the basic rates of income tax or national insurance, to avoid breaking a promise to protect “working people” in the budget.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Tax hikes possible, Reeves tells Sky News
Sky News has also obtained an internal definition of “working people” used by the Treasury, which relates to Britons who earn less than £45,000 a year.
This, in theory, means those on higher salaries could be the ones to face a squeeze in the budget – with the Treasury stating that it does not comment on tax measures.
Read more: The taxes Reeves could raise
In other developments, some top economists have warned Ms Reeves that increasing income tax or reducing public spending is her only option for balancing the books.
Experts from the Institute for Fiscal Studies have cautioned the chancellor against opting to hike alternative taxes instead, telling The Independent this would “cause unnecessary amounts of economic damage”.
Although such an approach would help the chancellor avoid breaking Labour’s manifesto pledge, it is feared a series of smaller changes would make the tax system “ever more complicated and less efficient”.
KitKats, Gaviscon, toothpaste, and even Freddo have all fallen victim to shrinkflation, consumer group Which? has found.
As families struggle with the cost of a trip to the supermarket, a survey of shoppers revealed how many products are getting smaller – while others are being downgraded with cheaper ingredients.
Among the examples are:
• Aquafresh complete care original toothpaste – from £1.30 for 100ml to £2 for 75ml at Tesco, Sainsbury’s and Ocado
• Gaviscon heartburn and indigestion liquid – from £14 for 600ml to £14 for 500ml at Sainsbury’s
• Sainsbury’s Scottish oats – from £1.25 for 1kg to £2.10 for 500g
• KitKat two-finger multipacks – from £3.60 for 21 bars to £5.50 for 18 bars at Ocado
• Quality Street tubs – from £6 for 600g to £7 for 550g at Morrisons
• Freddo multipacks – from £1.40 for five bars to £1.40 for four bars at Morrisons, Ocado and Tesco
Which? also received reports of popular treats missing key ingredients, as manufacturers seek to cut costs.
The amount of cocoa butter in white KitKats has fallen below 20%, meaning they can no longer actually be sold as white chocolate.
It comes after Penguin and Club bars lost their legal status as a chocolate biscuit, as they now contain more palm oil and shea oil than cocoa – as reported in the Sky News Money blog.
Which? retail editor Reena Sewraz called on supermarkets to be “more upfront” about price changes to help households “already under immense financial pressure” get better value.
While keeping track of the size and weight of products can be tricky, Which? has two top tips for detecting shrinkflation.
The first is to be wary of familiar products labelled as “new” – because the only thing that’s new may end up being the smaller size.
Meanwhile, the second is to pay attention to how much an item costs per 100g or 100ml, as this can be an easy way of finding out when prices change.
What have the companies said?
A spokeswoman for Mondelez International, which makes Cadbury products, said any change to product sizes are a “last resort”, but it’s facing “significantly higher input costs across our supply chain” – including for energy.
A Nestle spokesman said it was seeing “significant increases in the cost of coffee”, and some “adjustments” were occasionally needed “to maintain the same high quality and delicious taste that consumers know and love”.
“Retail pricing is always at the discretion of individual retailers,” they added.
A spokesman for the Food and Drink Federation also pointed to government policy, notably national insurance increases for employers and a new packaging tax.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Is inflation reaching its peak?
Fresh food prices on the rise
The Which? report comes as latest figures showed fresh food costs 4.3% more than it did a year ago.
The increase in October, reported by the British Retail Consortium (BRC) and market researchers NIQ, was up on the 4.1% year-on-year rise in September.
Overall food inflation was down slightly, though, to 3.7% from last month’s 4.2%.
Read more from Sky News:
Surprise move for Costa Coffee
Start-ups issue warning to Reeves
There has also been a slowdown in overall shop price inflation, which the BRC said was down to “fierce competition among retailers” ahead of Black Friday sales.
The annual shopping extravaganza will this year arrive in the same week as the chancellor’s budget, which is set for Wednesday 26 November.
BRC chief executive Helen Dickinson called on Rachel Reeves to help “relieve some pressures” keeping prices high, with the national insurance rise in last year’s budget having “directly contributed to rising inflation”.
“Adding further taxes on retail businesses would inevitably keep inflation higher for longer,” Ms Dickinson warned.
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024