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.
Business
Donald Trump’s tariffs will have consequences for globalisation, the US economy and geopolitics
For decades, trade and trade policy has been an economic and political backwater – decidedly boring, seemingly uncontroversial.
Trade was mostly free and getting freer, tariffs were getting lower and lower, and the world was becoming more, not less, globalised.
But alongside those long-term trends, there were some serious consequences.
Trump latest: US president announces sweeping global trade tariffs
Mature, developed economies like the UK and US became ever more reliant on cheap imports from China and, in the process, saw their manufacturing sectors shrink.
Large swathes of the rust belt in the US – and much of the Midlands and North of England – were hollowed out.
And to some extent that’s where the story of Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” really began – with the notion that free trade and globalisation had a darker side, a side he wants to remedy via tariffs.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Trump’s tariffs: Ed Conway analysis
He imposed a set of tariffs in his first term, some on China, some on specific materials like steel and aluminium. But the height and the breadth of those tariffs were as nothing compared with the ones we have just heard about.
Not since the 1930s has the US so radically increased the level of tariffs on all nations across the world. Back then, those tariffs exacerbated the Great Depression.
It’s anyone’s guess as to what the consequences of these ones will be. But there will be consequences.
Consequences for the nature of globalisation, consequences for the US economy (tariffs are exceptionally inflationary), consequences for geopolitics.
Imports from the UK will face a 10% tariff, while EU goods will see 20% rates. Pic: Reuters
And to some extent, merely knowing that little bit more about the White House’s plans will deliver a bit of relief to financial markets, which have fretted for months about the imposition of tariffs. That uncertainty recently reached unprecedented levels.
But don’t for a moment assume that this saga is over. Nothing of the sort. In the coming days, we will learn more – more about the nuts and bolts of these policies, more about the retaliatory measures coming from other countries.
We will, possibly, get more of a sense about whether some countries – including the UK – will enjoy reprieves from the tariffs.
To paraphrase Churchill, this isn’t the end of the trade war, or even the beginning of the end – perhaps just the end of the beginning.
Donald Trump has announced a 10% trade tariff on all imports from the UK – as he unleashed sweeping tariffs across the globe.
Speaking at a White House event entitled “Make America Wealthy Again”, the president held up a chart detailing the worst offenders – which also showed the new tariffs the US would be imposing.
“This is Liberation Day,” he told a cheering audience of supporters, while hitting out at foreign “cheaters”.
Follow live: Trump tariffs latest
He claimed “trillions” of dollars from the “reciprocal” levies he was imposing on others’ trade barriers would provide relief for the US taxpayer and restore US jobs and factories.
Mr Trump said the US has been “looted, pillaged, raped, plundered” by other nations.
Pic: AP
His first tariff announcement was a 25% duty on all car imports from midnight – 5am on Thursday, UK time.
Mr Trump confirmed the European Union would face a 20% reciprocal tariff on all other imports. China’s rate was set at 34%.
The UK’s rate of 10% was perhaps a shot across the bows over the country’s 20% VAT rate, though the president’s board suggested a 10% tariff imbalance between the two nations.
It was also confirmed that further US tariffs were planned on some individual sectors including semiconductors, pharmaceuticals and critical mineral imports.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Trump’s tariffs explained
The ramping up of duties promises to be painful for the global economy. Tariffs on steel and aluminium are already in effect.
The UK government signalled there would be no immediate retaliation.
Business and Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said: “We will always act in the best interests of UK businesses and consumers. That’s why, throughout the last few weeks, the government has been fully focused on negotiating an economic deal with the United States that strengthens our existing fair and balanced trading relationship.
“The US is our closest ally, so our approach is to remain calm and committed to doing this deal, which we hope will mitigate the impact of what has been announced today.
“We have a range of tools at our disposal and we will not hesitate to act. We will continue to engage with UK businesses including on their assessment of the impact of any further steps we take.
“Nobody wants a trade war and our intention remains to secure a deal. But nothing is off the table and the government will do everything necessary to defend the UK’s national interest.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Who showed up for Trump’s tariff address?
The EU has pledged to retaliate, which is a problem for Northern Ireland.
Should that scenario play out, the region faces the prospect of rising prices because all its imports are tied to EU rules under post-Brexit trading arrangements.
It means US goods shipped to Northern Ireland would be subject to the EU’s reprisals.
The impact of a trade war would be expected to be widely negative, with tit-for-tat tariffs risking job losses, a ramping up of prices and cooling of global trade.
Research for the Institute for Public Policy Research has suggested more than 25,000 direct jobs in the UK car manufacturing industry alone could be at risk from the tariffs on car exports to the US.
The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) had said the tariff costs could not be absorbed by manufacturers and may lead to a review of output.
The tariffs now on UK exports pose a big risk to growth and the so-called headroom Chancellor Rachel Reeves was forced to restore to the public finances at the spring statement, risking further spending cuts or tax rises ahead to meet her fiscal rules.
Read more:
What do Trump’s tariffs mean for the UK?
The rewards and risks for US as trade war intensifies
A member of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), David Miles, told MPs on Tuesday that US tariffs at 20% or 25% maintained on the UK for five years would “knock out all the headroom the government currently has”.
But he added that a “very limited tariff war” that the UK stays out of could be “mildly positive”.
He said: “There’s a bit of trade that will get diverted to the UK, and some of the exports from China, for example, that would have gone to the US, they’ll be looking for a home for them in the rest of the world.
“And stuff would be available in the UK a bit cheaper than otherwise would have been. So there is one, not central scenario at all, which is very, very mildly potentially positive to the UK. All the other ones which involve the UK facing tariffs are negative, and they’re negative to very different extents.”
Business
Donald Trump’s tariffs will have consequences for globalisation, the US economy and geopolitics
For decades, trade and trade policy has been an economic and political backwater – decidedly boring, seemingly uncontroversial.
Trade was mostly free and getting freer, tariffs were getting lower and lower, and the world was becoming more, not less, globalised.
But alongside those long-term trends, there were some serious consequences.
Trump latest: US president announces sweeping global trade tariffs
Mature, developed economies like the UK and US became ever more reliant on cheap imports from China and, in the process, saw their manufacturing sectors shrink.
Large swathes of the rust belt in the US – and much of the Midlands and North of England – were hollowed out.
And to some extent that’s where the story of Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” really began – with the notion that free trade and globalisation had a darker side, a side he wants to remedy via tariffs.
He imposed a set of tariffs in his first term, some on China, some on specific materials like steel and aluminium. But the height and the breadth of those tariffs were as nothing compared with the ones we have just heard about.
Not since the 1930s has the US so radically increased the level of tariffs on all nations across the world. Back then, those tariffs exacerbated the Great Depression.
It’s anyone’s guess as to what the consequences of these ones will be. But there will be consequences.
Consequences for the nature of globalisation, consequences for the US economy (tariffs are exceptionally inflationary), consequences for geopolitics.
Imports from the UK will face a 10% tariff, while EU goods will see 20% rates. Pic: Reuters
And to some extent, merely knowing that little bit more about the White House’s plans will deliver a bit of relief to financial markets, which have fretted for months about the imposition of tariffs. That uncertainty recently reached unprecedented levels.
But don’t for a moment assume that this saga is over. Nothing of the sort. In the coming days, we will learn more – more about the nuts and bolts of these policies, more about the retaliatory measures coming from other countries.
We will, possibly, get more of a sense about whether some countries – including the UK – will enjoy reprieves from the tariffs.
To paraphrase Churchill, this isn’t the end of the trade war, or even the beginning of the end – perhaps just the end of the beginning.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports12 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 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
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway