Yet another fiscal 'black hole'? Here's why this one matters
You're probably tired by now of hearing all about "black holes".
It's one of those phrases trotted out by journalists in an effort to make economic policy sound a little more interesting. And in some senses it's a massively misleading image.
After all, when people talk about fiscal holes, what they're really talking about is something rather prosaic: the amount of money it would take for the chancellor not to break her fiscal rules.
Those fiscal rules are not god-given, after all. They were confected by the chancellor herself. Missing them will not really result in Britain sliding into infinite nothingness. Even so, whatever you choose to call the dilemma she's faced with right now, it's certainly quite a big deal.
And understanding this helps provide a little context for the extraordinary events of the past few days, with markets sliding in the wake of Ms Reeves' teary appearance at Prime Minister's Questions.
Following that moment, the yield on UK government debt - the rate of interest we're being charged by international investors - suddenly leapt higher. Granted, the jump was nothing like what we saw in the wake of Liz Truss's mini-budget. And those yields dropped down after the prime minister backed the chancellor.
Even so, they underline one very important bit of context. The UK has become something of an outlier in global debt markets. For years, the yield on our benchmark government bonds was more or less middle of the industrialised-world pack. But since 2022's drama, it has hovered unnervingly high, above every other G7 nation.
That speaks to a broader issue. Britain might not have the biggest deficit in the G7, or for that matter, the highest national debt. Others (most notably France, and to some extent, too, the US) face even more desperate fiscal dilemmas in the coming years. But markets do still seem nervous about Britain.
Perhaps that's because of what they (and we) all endured in 2022 - when British gilt markets stepped briefly over the precipice, causing malfunctions all around the financial system (most notably in obscure parts of the pensions investment sector). But it also owes something to the fact that the chancellor's own fiscal plans are sailing worryingly close to the wind.
Reeves made f iscal rules matter
The main piece of evidence here is the amount of leeway she has left herself against her fiscal rules. As I said at the start, there's nothing gospel about these rules. But having created them and banged on about them for a long time, even those of us who are a little sceptical about fiscal rules would concede that breaking them is, as they say, not a good look.
Back in spring, the Office for Budget Responsibility thought the chancellor had about £9.9bn in leeway against these rules. But since then, she has u-turned on both the cuts in winter fuel payments and on personal independence payments. That reduces the £9.9bn down to barely more than £3bn.
But the real issue isn't just these U-turns. It's something else. The stronger the economy is, the more tax revenues come in and the more her potential headroom against the fiscal rules would be. By the same token, if the economy grows less rapidly than the OBR expected, that would mean less tax revenues and an even bigger deficit.
And if you compare the OBR's latest forecasts with the current average of forecasts among independent forecasters, or for that matter, the Bank of England, they do look decidedly optimistic. If the OBR is right and everyone else is wrong, then the chancellor "only" has to fill in the hole left by those U-turns. But if the OBR is wrong and everyone else is right, things get considerably more grisly.
Even a small downgrade in the OBR's expectations for productivity growth - say a 0.1 percentage point drop - would obliterate the remaining headroom and leave the chancellor with a £6bn shortfall against her rule. Anything more than that (and bear in mind, most economists think the OBR is out by more than that) and she could be £10bn or more underwater.
Now, there are plenty of very reasonable points one could make about how silly this all is. It's silly that so many people treat fiscal rules as tablets of stone. It's silly that government tax policy from one year to the next seems to hinge on how right or wrong the OBR's economic forecasts are.
Yet all this stuff, silly as it might all seem, is taken quite seriously by markets right now. They look at the UK, see an outlier, and tend to focus more than usual on black holes. So I'm afraid we're going to be talking about "black holes" for quite some time to come.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
29 minutes ago
- The Independent
Asian shares are mostly higher after Trump says he discussed firing Fed Chair Powell
World shares were mostly higher Thursday while U.S. futures were mixed after President Donald Trump rocked Wall Street by saying he had 'talked about the concept of firing' the head of the Federal Reserve, but was unlikely to do so. Removing Fed Chair Jerome Powell might help Wall Street get the lower interest rates investors love but would also risk a weakened Fed unable to make the unpopular moves needed to keep inflation under control. In early European trading, Germany's DAX gained 0.8% to 24,209.08, while the CAC 40 in Paris also rose 0.8%, to 7,785.91. Britain's FTSE 100 added 0.4% to 8,960.99. The future for the S&P 500 edged 0.1% higher, while that for the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 0.1%. Asian markets also were mostly higher. Tokyo's Nikkei 225 index gained 0.6% to 39,901.19 after the government reported a trade deficit for the first half of the year as Japan's exports to the United States took a hit from Trump's tariffs. The Hang Seng in Hong Kong shed early gains to close down 0.1% at 24,498.95, while the Shanghai Composite index gained 0.4% to 3,516.83. Australia's S&P/ASX 200 advanced 0.9% to 8,639.00. In South Korea, the Kospi climbed 0.2% to 3,192.29. India's Sensex lost 0.3% while the SET in Bangkok jumped 3.3% on strong gains for market heavyweights like Airports of Thailand and Delta Electronics. On Wednesday, the S&P 500 rose 0.3% and the Dow industrials added 0.5%. The Nasdaq composite gained 0.3% to a fresh record of 20,730.49. Stocks were rising modestly in the morning before news reports saying that Trump was likely to fire Fed Chair Jerome Powell quickly sent the S&P 500 down by 0.7%. When later asked directly if he was planning to fire Powell, Trump said, 'I don't rule out anything, but I think it's highly unlikely.' That helped calm the market, and stocks erased their losses, though Trump added that he could still fire Powell if 'he has to leave for fraud.' Trump has been criticizing a $2.5 billion renovation project of the Fed's headquarters. Trump is unhappy that the Fed has not cut interest rates this year, a move that would have made it easier for U.S. households and businesses to get loans to buy houses, build factories and otherwise boost the economy. Lower interest rates could also help the U.S. government, which is set to borrow and add a lot more to its debt after approving a wide range of tax cuts. Powell has insisted he wants to wait for more data about how Trump's stiff proposed tariffs will affect the economy and inflation before the Fed makes its next move. The Fed has two main jobs: keeping the job market strong while keeping inflation under control. Lowering interest rates would help boost the economy but would also give inflation more fuel when tariffs may be set to push prices for U.S. households higher. A report on Wednesday said inflation at the wholesale level slowed to 2.3% last month, which was better than economists expected. It's an encouraging signal, but it came a day after another report suggested that Trump's tariffs are pushing up the prices U.S. shoppers are paying for toys, apparel and other imported products. Trump's tariffs are making their weight felt across financial markets. Netherlands-based ASML, the world's leading supplier of chipmaking gear, has warned that it can't guarantee growth next year, after delivering an expected 15% growth in sales for 2025. ASML shares that trade in the United States fell 8.3%. In other dealings early Thursday, U.S. benchmark crude oil gained 13 cents to $66.51 per barrel. Brent crude, the international standard, gave up 10 cents to $68.40 per barrel. The U.S. dollar rose to 148.59 Japanese yen from 147.89 yen. The euro slipped to $1.1601 from $1.1641.
The Independent
29 minutes ago
- The Independent
Sixteen-year-olds to be allowed to vote as ministers set out reforms
The next general election will see 16-year-olds able to vote for the first time, ministers have confirmed in wide-ranging plans to 'modernise our democracy'. Labour's manifesto committed the party to lowering the voting age for parliamentary elections to 16, in line with Scottish and Welsh elections. But plans announced on Thursday go further in an effort to increase participation in elections. Ministers have proposed introducing automated voter registration, which is already used in Australia and Canada, and making UK-issued bank cards an accepted form of ID at polling stations. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said 'far too many people' had been put off voting by the voter ID rules introduced by the previous government, with the Electoral Commission finding around 750,000 people did not vote due to a lack of ID. The Government has already made the Veteran Card an accepted form of voter ID, and intends to allow digital forms of ID to be used when they become available. Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner said: 'For too long public trust in our democracy has been damaged and faith in our institutions has been allowed to decline. 'We are taking action to break down barriers to participation that will ensure more people have the opportunity to engage in UK democracy, supporting our plan for change, and delivering on our manifesto commitment to give 16-year-olds the right to vote.' Thursday's plans will also see a tightening of the rules on campaign finance aimed at barring 'shell companies' from donating to political parties and requiring more checks on donations to unincorporated associations. The Electoral Commission will be given the power to levy £500,000 fines on those who break the new rules on donations. Rushanara Ali, the minister for democracy, said: 'We are modernising our democracy so that it is fit for the 21st century.' She added: 'By reinforcing safeguards against foreign interference, we will strengthen our democratic institutions and protect them for future generations.' The proposal follows concern about the vulnerability of UK politics to donations from overseas, which came to prominence amid reports Elon Musk was considering a major donation to Reform UK. Unincorporated associations have long been another concern of transparency campaigners, who have warned they can obscure the real source of political donations. It also comes as the Electoral Commission reported spending at last year's general election hit a record high of £94.5 million, including £69.3 million spent by political parties. Labour outspent its rivals, shelling out £30 million during the campaign, more than twice the amount it spent in 2019, while the Conservatives spent £23.9 million and the Liberal Democrats £5.6 million. Reform spent £5.5 million, the Greens £1.7 million and the SNP £799,000. Thursday's plan will see the Government bring forward legislation to introduce its new rules, which also include tougher sentences for people who intimidate candidates amid a rise in reports of abuse aimed at those standing for election. Harry Quilter-Pinner, executive director of the IPPR think tank, said the changes were 'the biggest reform to our electoral system since 1969', when the voting age was lowered to 18. He said: 'Barely half of people voted in last year's general election. 'Our democracy is in crisis, and we risk reaching a tipping point where politics loses its legitimacy. 'The Government has clearly heard these alarm bells.' Arguing that lowering the voting age and introducing automated voter registration could bring 9.5 million more people into the democratic process, he said: 'At a time when public trust in politics is at a low ebb, this expansion of our democracy is a vital step toward rebuilding confidence, modernising our institutions and pushing back against the rise of populism.'
North Wales Live
29 minutes ago
- North Wales Live
UK Government confirms 16 and 17-year-olds can vote in general elections
The next general election will see 16-year-olds able to vote for the first time, ministers have confirmed in wide-ranging plans to "modernise our democracy". Labour's manifesto committed the party to lowering the voting age for parliamentary elections to 16, in line with Scottish and Welsh elections. But plans announced on Thursday go further in an effort to increase participation in elections. Ministers have proposed introducing automated voter registration, which is already used in Australia and Canada, and making UK-issued bank cards an accepted form of ID at polling stations. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said "far too many people" had been put off voting by the voter ID rules introduced by the previous government, with the Electoral Commission finding around 750,000 people did not vote due to a lack of ID. The Government has already made the Veteran Card an accepted form of voter ID, and intends to allow digital forms of ID to be used when they become available. Sign up for the North Wales Live newsletter sent twice daily to your inbox Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner said: "For too long public trust in our democracy has been damaged and faith in our institutions has been allowed to decline. "We are taking action to break down barriers to participation that will ensure more people have the opportunity to engage in UK democracy, supporting our plan for change, and delivering on our manifesto commitment to give 16-year-olds the right to vote." Thursday's plans will also see a tightening of the rules on campaign finance aimed at barring "shell companies" from donating to political parties and requiring more checks on donations to unincorporated associations. The Electoral Commission will be given the power to levy £500,000 fines on those who break the new rules on donations. Rushanara Ali, the minister for democracy, said: "We are modernising our democracy so that it is fit for the 21st century." She added: "By reinforcing safeguards against foreign interference, we will strengthen our democratic institutions and protect them for future generations." The proposal follows concern about the vulnerability of UK politics to donations from overseas, which came to prominence amid reports Elon Musk was considering a major donation to Reform UK. Unincorporated associations have long been another concern of transparency campaigners, who have warned they can obscure the real source of political donations. It also comes as the Electoral Commission reported spending at last year's general election hit a record high of £94.5 million, including £69.3 million spent by political parties. Labour outspent its rivals, shelling out £30 million during the campaign, more than twice the amount it spent in 2019, while the Conservatives spent £23.9 million and the Liberal Democrats £5.6 million. Reform spent £5.5 million, the Greens £1.7 million and the SNP £799,000. Thursday's plan will see the Government bring forward legislation to introduce its new rules, which also include tougher sentences for people who intimidate candidates amid a rise in reports of abuse aimed at those standing for election. Harry Quilter-Pinner, executive director of the IPPR think tank, said the changes were "the biggest reform to our electoral system since 1969", when the voting age was lowered to 18. He said: "Barely half of people voted in last year's general election. "Our democracy is in crisis, and we risk reaching a tipping point where politics loses its legitimacy. "The Government has clearly heard these alarm bells."
