After the election there's going to be a fiscal hole to fill. How big though?
A *very* fag-packet calculation suggests whoever wins needs £30-40bn just to keep the show on the road - unless something turns up
Some thinking aloud...🧵
1st some assumptions. In March HMT had just a £6.5bn margin against its debt falling target
For simplicity, assume no change to that in 2028-9. Assume too that the next gov keeps the 5-yr debt rule. Also assume nothing changes in the underlying forecast or debt service costs
This week's @TheIFS green budget has an excellent run down of some of the tax/spending risks. Some things not yet accounted for:
- £6bn to keep fuel duty frozen
- ~£6bn for full expensing (assumes half way between the £10bn up-front cost and £2bn long-term cost - here's the IFS)
- £10bn to achieve flat real spending for unprotected departments (1.5% real cuts not plausible)
- £1bn for housing benefit? (at some point the freeze has to end and rents are rising pretty fast)
- £13bn for flat real capital spending, so back to Sunak's old plans (any less is difficult given net zero, crumbling schools, hospitals, full prisons plus defence pressures)
Obvs there are totally arbitrary benchmarks.
But if you think that's a rough baseline for plausible policy, it means ~£36bn/year more tax by 2028 to get debt falling and stop things getting any worse
That's equiv to 5p on the basic rate of income tax or more than 4ppt on VAT to stop the wheels falling off 😱
There's lots more you could add. Is flat real enough for schools given the pay and recruitment issues? Is 3.6% enough for health with waiting lists heading to 8m?
Others will know much better but hard to see even +£36bn as much more than keeping the show on the road...
Let's say you wanted to improve things a bit e.g.:
- an additional 1/2% per year growth in day-to-day spending for public services would add about £10bn by 2028
- maybe £1.5bn to get rid of the 2 child limit?
At this point you're getting close to an extra £50bn per year.
So minimum £30bn and maybe up to £50bn if there's to be a sense of things improving.
Am I being too pessimistic? Is there some good news I'm missing?
The best hope is that something turns up - maybe debt interest falls or trend growth projections (already looking optimistic?) get increased.
But if it doesn't then it looks like whoever is in charge in 2025 will need to deliver some pretty bad news.
Have a nice weekend!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
High and converging levels of concern about the problem across social classes, age groups and urban/rural.
Not obvious what anti-climate electoral strategy works from that
Then there’s the values divide. Brexit was a deep divide between socially conservative and socially liberal people that cut across economic left/right. Climate isn’t that stark.
Good to speak @CommonsTreasury about wealth and intergen inequality today with David Willetts and Resham Kotecha of @SMCommission. An edited 🧵of my comments
First up is the likely impact of last year's events on aggregate UK household wealth: it will be big
My paper for the LSE wealth tax commission on the drivers of the huge surge in wealth of the past 25 years gives some pointers as to what we can expect
Haldane's proposal of dumping government debt rules and letting borrowing be constrained only by public sector net worth surely right in principle.
But is it viable in practice? Are there simpler ways to get to a similar destination?
Four drivers of changes in assets/liabilities are worth thinking about: 1. Natural assets 2. Countercyclical fiscal policy 3. Land 4. Fixed assets like transport, energy, health infrastructure
1. Haldane's suggestion of taking natural assets into account highlights the question of how broad you take the definition of assets.
Including natural assets like the biosphere is much broader than the conventional definition of PSNW.
Politically the story of the budget seems to be:
-game the 5-year debt/deficit rules to do temporary spending splurges today
-juice the next parliament for permanent future policy liabilities enabling announcements today
-leave departmental spend plans unsustainable from 2025 🧵
Childcare was arguably the Chancellor's biggest move today. But the full cost only hits after the current spending review period.
Tying up cash from 2025 gets the government an announcement today, rather than helping boost departmental budgets after 2025
Then full expensing. Here HMT's used the flexibility allowed by having 5-year debt/deficit rules to splurge on a policy that would be great for growth... if only it was *permanent*
Is the Chancellor's plan to tackle inactivity through a £1.8m lifetime pension allowance fighting a problem that's already over?
Latest LFS micro data shows that flows into retirement in Q4 dropped below their pre-pandemic average
It's just one quarter's data of course so should treat with caution, but it's currently looking like we should see the 'great retirement' as a blip rather than a structural shift.
What about the broader picture of flow into inactivity for any reason?
This too seems to be converging with the pre-pandemic norm.
Flows into inactivity for health and 'other' reasons are still slightly above pre-pandemic norms but not much.
It's always good to see someone actually try to stack up the case for a housing shortage as @CPSThinkTank has done today, rather that simply assert it in commentary.
But that demonstrates just how weak that case is. Quick comments on their key points 🧵
Today, here is the CPS authors' case against. How convincing are these?
Taking 2nd one first, CPS says @ONS rent index is unreliable (right image). This is false
It's good to see CPS agree that rents are key indicator of supply adequacy, as I've been saying for years. But ONS (left) clearly says the official rent index is 'high-quality and robust'