The Fiscal Challenge Ahead for Rachel Reeves
As Rachel Reeves prepares for her first budget as Chancellor, she faces a complex web of fiscal rules that will shape her economic strategy. Among these, the so-called debt rule stands out as particularly pressing. This rule mandates that the national debt—specifically, "public sector net debt excluding Bank of England interventions"—must be on a downward trajectory within a five-year timeframe.
The Origins of the Debt Rule
It’s important to note that this rule is not a time-honored principle of fiscal policy; rather, it was a construct of the Conservative Party, introduced in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. This context raises questions about its validity and relevance in today’s economic landscape. Reeves inherits a framework that was designed in a moment of crisis, and now she must navigate its implications.
The Numbers Game
To comply with the debt rule, Reeves must ensure that national debt is decreasing between the fourth and fifth years of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s (OBR) five-year forecast. According to the latest forecasts, which date back to Jeremy Hunt’s last budget, the debt is projected to fall—but only marginally, by £8.9 billion. This figure has become a focal point in Westminster, often referred to as the "headroom" figure, which indicates the limited leeway Reeves has for additional borrowing.
The Limitations of the Debt Rule
However, it’s crucial to recognize that these fiscal rules are not set in stone. There is no immutable law dictating that national debt must decline within five years. Moreover, investments can yield returns that exceed their initial costs, yet the debt rule only considers the immediate financial outlay, ignoring potential long-term benefits. This short-sightedness can stifle necessary investments that could ultimately bolster the economy.
The Flaws in Measurement
The current debt rule’s focus on a specific measure of national debt raises further concerns. By excluding the Bank of England’s interventions, the government is potentially overlooking a significant aspect of the economic landscape. The Bank’s quantitative easing policies, which involve the buying and selling of government debt, have distorted the national debt figures. As a result, many economists argue that the debt measure being used is not only misleading but also disconnected from the realities of government fiscal policy.
A Broader Perspective on Debt
When we shift our focus to the overall measure of net debt, the picture changes dramatically. This broader perspective reveals that net debt is actually projected to fall more significantly between the fourth and fifth years—by nearly £25 billion, rather than the £8.9 billion suggested by the narrower measure. This expanded headroom could provide Reeves with the flexibility she needs to invest in critical areas without breaching fiscal rules.
A Potential Shift in Strategy
Given these insights, it is plausible that Reeves might advocate for a shift in focus from the current debt measure to the overall public sector net debt (PSND). While some may view this as a mere accounting trick, it could be a necessary adjustment to align fiscal policy with economic realities. This change would not only grant her more room to borrow for investment but also challenge the arbitrary nature of the existing rules.
Alternative Measures for Fiscal Health
If Reeves is committed to adhering to the five-year timeline but wishes to incorporate the benefits of investment into her calculations, she has other options. Two alternative measures—public sector net financial liabilities and public sector net worth—could provide a more comprehensive view of the state’s financial health. These measures account for both the assets and liabilities of the state, potentially reflecting the long-term benefits of investments more accurately.
The Volatility of Alternative Metrics
However, these alternative measures come with their own set of challenges. They are subject to revisions based on changing valuations of state assets, such as infrastructure. Critics argue that this volatility could lead to more manipulation of figures, complicating fiscal assessments. Yet, the potential for a more favorable headroom picture—over £60 billion—could be a compelling reason for Reeves to consider these alternatives.
Rethinking the Timeframe
Another significant change that could enhance fiscal flexibility would be extending the five-year deadline to a ten or even fifteen-year horizon. Such a shift would allow for a more realistic assessment of the economic impact of investments. A longer timeframe would likely reveal that spending on infrastructure and other critical areas could yield positive returns, transforming the narrative around debt from a burden to an opportunity for growth.
Navigating the Fiscal Landscape
As Rachel Reeves approaches her first budget, the fiscal rules she must navigate present both challenges and opportunities. By critically assessing the existing debt rule and considering alternative measures and timelines, she has the potential to reshape the conversation around public spending and investment. The decisions she makes will not only impact her tenure but could also set the stage for the future of the UK’s economic policy.