Connect with us

Published

on

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.

More on Rachel Reeves

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.

Ed Conway's graphs

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.

Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp

Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News

Tap here

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.

Ed Conway's graphs

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.

Continue Reading

Business

Tariffs hit US economy forecast but the Fed unmoved by latest Trump threats with no change to interest rates

Published

on

By

Tariffs hit US economy forecast but the Fed unmoved by latest Trump threats with no change to interest rates

The US central bank has made no change to interest rates and warned the world’s biggest economy will see less growth and higher inflation due to tariffs.

The Federal Reserve, known as the Fed, held rates despite President Donald Trump calling its chair, Jerome Powell, a “stupid person” on Wednesday.

“Maybe I should go to the Fed. Am I allowed to appoint myself at the Fed? I’d do a much better job than these people,” Mr Trump said.

Money blog: ‘Uncomfortable reality check’ for home buyers

Despite appointing Mr Powell himself in 2017, Mr Trump has expressed anger towards the Fed chair at multiple points in the past for not bringing down borrowing costs through interest rate cuts.

In his own address to reporters, Mr Powell declined to hit back.

The tariff effect

More on Donald Trump

But Mr Trump’s signature economic policy of tariffs – taxes on imports – was again forecast to cause higher inflation and lower economic growth in the US.

The Fed’s predictions for inflation were upgraded to 3.1% for 2025 from 2.5% in December, while the outlook for US economic growth was downgraded to 1.4% from 2.1% in December.

The effect of those extra taxes on imports will take time to work its way through the system and show up in prices on shelves, the Fed chair said.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Trump may strike Iran

An uncertain outlook

While the level of uncertainty peaked in April, when Mr Trump announced many of his tariffs, and has since fallen, it remains elevated, Mr Powell said.

The exact impact of the levies is unclear and depends on the levels they reach, he added.

Many of the country-specific tariffs have been paused for 90 days, which is currently due to end on 8 July.

Follow The World
Follow The World

Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday

Tap to follow

Despite this, the economy is in a “solid position”, Mr Powell said.

Interest rates were kept at 4.25%-4.5%. Unlike the UK, the US interest rate is a range to guide lenders rather than a single percentage.

A slowdown in the US economy can have an impact on the UK as the US is its largest trading partner.

On Thursday, it’s the turn of the UK central bank, the Bank of England, to make its latest interest rate determination, with no change also expected.

Continue Reading

Business

Santander approaches TSB-owner about high street banking merger

Published

on

By

Santander approaches TSB-owner about high street banking merger

Santander has approached its fellow Spanish banking group Sabadell about a takeover of TSB, its British high street bank.

Sky News has learnt that Santander is among the parties which have expressed an interest in a potential deal, months after its boss denied that it was seeking to offload the UK’s fifth-largest retail bank.

City sources said on Wednesday that Santander had not tabled a formal offer for TSB, and was not certain to do so.

Money latest: What inflation data means for home buyers

However, the fact that it has contacted Sabadell about a possible transaction involving TSB suggests that Ana Botin, the Santander chair, may be open again to expanding its presence in Britain’s high street banking market.

The extent of the overlap between the two companies’ UK branch networks was unclear on Wednesday morning.

Santander, which like other banks has been engaged in an extensive branch closure programme for some time, now has roughly 350 UK branches, while TSB operates roughly half that number.

More from Money

The value that TSB, which was acquired by Sabadell in 2015 from Lloyds Banking Group, might attract in any takeover is also unclear.

Sabadell is in the middle of attempting to thwart a hostile takeover by rival Spanish bank BBVA – a deal revealed by Sky News last year – with a disposal of TSB said to be on the cards regardless of whether or not that bid is successful.

Ms Botin insisted that the UK remains a core market for Santander in the wake of speculation that she might sanction a sale of the business.

The company recently confirmed a Sky News report that Sir Tom Scholar, the former top Treasury official sacked by Liz Truss during her brief premiership, was joining the bank’s UK arm as its next chairman.

NatWest Group, which recently returned to full private ownership, was reported to have submitted an offer worth about £11bn for Santander UK.

No discussions are ongoing about such a deal.

NatWest, Barclays and HSBC have also been touted as potential suitors for TSB, although at least two of those three banks are thought to have little interest in bidding.

TSB was effectively created from the ashes of the 2008 financial crisis, when a vehicle set up to acquire assets from distressed banking groups lost out in an auction to a bid from the Co-operative Bank.

That deal fell through when it emerged that the Co-operative Bank itself was in a perilous financial state.

Sabadell explored a sale of TSB about five years ago, but opted to retain the business.

Goldman Sachs is thought to be advising Sabadell on the prospective sale of TSB.

Read more from Sky News:
Inflation slows but no rate cut likely
Western goods in Russian shops despite sanctions
Co-op discount offer after cyberattack

Responding to a report in the Financial Times on Sunday that TSB had been put up for sale, Banco Sabadell said: “Banco Sabadell confirms that it has received preliminary non-binding expressions of interest for the acquisition of the entire share capital of TSB Banking Group plc.

“Banco Sabadell will assess any potential binding offer it may receive.”

Santander declined to comment.

The TSB process emerged just hours after Sky News had revealed that Metro Bank, the high street lender, had been approached by Pollen Street Capital, the private equity firm, about a possible takeover.

The absence of a statement from either party implies that the approach was rejected and that Pollen Street has abandoned its interest, at least temporarily.

Continue Reading

Business

Inflation slows to 3.4% but no Bank of England rate cut expected

Published

on

By

Inflation slows to 3.4% but no Bank of England rate cut expected

Inflation eased to an annual rate of 3.4% in May, according to official figures released this morning, but the Bank of England is widely expected to leave interest rates on hold despite that.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) reported the consumer prices index measure eased from 3.5% the previous month.

It said that despite upwards pressure on prices from food and clothing, the decline was driven by falls in airfare prices following Easter.

Money latest: What easing inflation means for your money

The headline figure also reflected a small downwards correction to ONS inflation data ahead of April related to vehicle excise duty calculations.

ONS acting chief economist Richard Heys said: “A variety of counteracting price movements meant inflation was little changed in May.

FOOD INFLATION AT 15-MONTH HIGH


James Sillars, business reporter

James Sillars

Business and economics reporter

@SkyNewsBiz

Today’s headline inflation number suggests a flat picture for price growth overall.

But there is one stat that households will already be familiar with after a visit to the supermarket.

A jump in some food prices has been noticeable, with the ONS flagging a leap in its food and non-alcoholic drinks measure of inflation to a 15-month high.

Why the rise? Chocolate has spiked significantly this year due to a cocoa shortage blamed on poor harvests. Meat, particularly beef, has shot up on high global demand and rising costs.

The food and non-alcoholic drinks category has been on the rise for five months in a row. But the good news is that high rates of sales promotions by chains – discounts – are helping keep a lid on overall grocery bills.

“Air fares fell this month, compared with a large rise at the same time last year, as the timing of Easter and school holidays affected pricing. Meanwhile, motor fuel costs also saw a drop.

More on Inflation

“These were partially offset by rising food prices, particularly items such as chocolates and meat products. The cost of furniture and household goods, including fridge freezers and vacuum cleaners, also increased.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Businesses facing fresh energy cost threat

Forecasts suggest that inflation will tick up over the second half of the year – with effects from Donald Trump’s trade war and rising commodity costs amid events in the Middle East among the concerns ahead for the Bank of England.

It has adopted a “careful” and “gradual” approach to interest rate cuts as a result.

That is despite weakening employment data, reported earlier this month, which showed a tick up in the official jobless rate and a 109,000 reduction in payrolled employment.

Other elements of the inflation data are also supportive of an argument for rate cuts.

Core CPI inflation – a measure that strips out volatile elements such as energy and food – eased from 3.8% in April to 3.5% while services inflation tumbled sharply to 4.7% from 5.4% the previous month.

Nevertheless, the Bank is widely expected to leave Bank rate on hold on Thursday following the June meeting of its rate-setting committee.

LSEG data showed after the inflation data that financial markets currently see two more interest rate cuts by the year’s end.

Risks to prices ahead will come from a sustained Israel-Iran war pushing up oil and gas prices but there have been different views among policymakers over whether the trade war will result in inflation or not.

As such, the minutes of the Bank’s meeting will be closely scrutinised for hints on whether rate cut caution is easing.

Continue Reading

Trending