X Close

Rachel Reeves is bringing back austerity

Is Labour telling the full story about why Britain went broke? Credit: Getty

July 29, 2024 - 4:45pm

Chancellor Rachel Reeves this afternoon launched the opening salvo of what promises to be a gruelling austerity programme for the Labour government. As she announced cutbacks to winter fuel payments and cancelled road and rail initiatives, opposite number Jeremy Hunt stated — probably accurately — that Labour is paving the way for tax increases in the near future.

The first question that should be asked about Labour’s turn towards harsh austerity is: why now? Reeves and her party are trying to spin this as if their predecessors hid the extent to which Britain is broke. They appear to want to play on public misperceptions about how Government budgeting works, telling voters that the Tories simply hid the credit card bills and Labour came along and found them.

But this is not how Government finances work. Rather, organisations such as the Treasury and the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) come up with economic forecasts and forecasts of public borrowing. These forecasts are then given to the Chancellor who uses them to set the Government budget, and only change when there is a large external event or “shock” to the economy. Since there has been no such shock since the election, we can infer that Labour knew exactly how bad the situation was but misled the public during the campaign.

It is then worth asking what it means for a country like Britain to be broke and what it will mean for the country moving into the future. Since the Chancellor revealed to the public how bad the situation is, a public debate has sprung up on social media. Some on the Left, influenced by Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), are arguing that a country like Britain can never be broke because it issues its own currency.

The argument here is effectively that the Government can borrow as much as it wants because the Bank of England (BoE) can buy up the bonds even if private investors do not want to hold them. In this vision, all the Chancellor must do is lean on the central bank and tell it to buy the debt. To some extent, what the MMT proponents say is true. This is basically how the quantitative easing (QE) programmes worked in the wake of the global financial crisis of 2008.

But what these people miss is that Britain runs a very large trade deficit. In the third quarter of 2023, it is estimated that the country had a current account deficit of £21.2 billion — or 3.1% of GDP. To finance this deficit, the British Government must sell debt to foreigners. If these sales dried up, sterling would have to adjust downward to close the gap, resulting in a substantial rise in the price of imports.

Since imports make up around 33.4% of GDP this would mean a rise in the price of approximately a third of British goods and services. Such inflation would feed through into the system more generally and Britain would see substantially higher inflation. This in turn would mean a decline in real incomes and another round of the cost-of-living crisis. And so the choice for the Government is to impose austerity through tax increases and spending cuts or allow the markets to impose austerity through higher rates of inflation.

Perhaps the most depressing thing about this austerity is that there is no real end in sight. Unlike the conditions placed on the PIIGS countries during the Eurozone debt crisis, there does not appear to be any intention here for the country to regain its competitiveness and experience growth once more. The chatter in Whitehall and around economic think tanks is that stagnation is here to stay. Phrased differently, Britain is about to enter a period of severe economic decline.

Keir Starmer’s time in office is set to be one of the grimmest the UK has experienced since the end of rationing after the Second World War. Do not expect British leaders to ask how the country went bankrupt in the first place. That would require reevaluating the runaway spending associated with Covid-19 lockdown policies, the huge losses from the Bank of England’s QE programmes, and the war in Ukraine which gave rise to skyrocketing energy prices and the extremely costly Energy Price Guarantee.

In short, it was the civil servants with their supposed technocratic acumen who drove Britain into the fiscal ditch — and it is the British taxpayer who will pay the price.


Philip Pilkington is a macroeconomist and investment professional, and the author of The Reformation in Economics

philippilk

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

28 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 month ago

In short, it was the civil servants with their supposed technocratic acumen who drove Britain into the fiscal ditch

And here I thought that it was the government – 14 years of Tory government – that had taken the decisions. And now we realise that the poor government never had any power over what was happening. It was Sir Humphrey all along! Nice try, for getting the Tories off the hook, but it is not going to wash. Even if you were right, it would only prove that the Tories were incapable of running a whelk stall, let alone a country. It would not be unreasonable to hope that Labour might be able to do at least a little better than that.

David Lindsay
David Lindsay
1 month ago

The pay deal with the junior doctors is a welcome sign of what trade unionism can achieve. Now we need some of it for the low paid. But Labour in Opposition would have torn a Conservative Government to pieces if it had tried to means test the winter fuel payment. Not so much as to have restored universality in office. But even so.

Pensioners are famously hard to reach with means tested benefits, and energy bills are 92 per cent higher than they were in 2021, but Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves are surrounded by nepo babies who have no idea why anyone would need the winter fuel payment. Come the next General Election, then the pensioners will not blame a Government that had left office five years earlier. Nor should they.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 month ago

Pain. Pain. Pain. The problems won’t be solved without some measure of pain. Spending cuts are essential. You can start with all the superfluous programs sponsored by the govt – arts, culture, sports etc. There probably needs to be across the board cuts, with sweeping job cuts. I guess it’s easier said than done, but I’m not sure there’s much choice.

Energy costs need to be greatly reduced. You simply cannot run a competitive economy with some of the highest energy costs in the world. The difference between rich nations and poor nations is access to cheap, reliable energy.

Unfortunately, the situation looks really grim and almost intractable.

Dennis Roberts
Dennis Roberts
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

The problem with your pain argument is that we had a period of austerity just as you suggest. Whilst this brought the deficit down from 10+% to 3% or so, and had to be done, it did not stimulate growth. On a per capita basis the UK has stagnated since the early/mid 00s.

The UK has become entirely dependent on immigration and house prices to create (the appearance of) growth. It needs to increase productivity.

Oliver Butt
Oliver Butt
1 month ago
Reply to  Dennis Roberts

The previous austerity was too modest and too slow. They never got ahead of the curve and patience ran out. The end point should not have been a deficit of 3% but balance and a surplus, followed by growth inducing tax cuts. But they could never get beyond the “those with the broadest shoulders…” mantra.

Caractacus Potts
Caractacus Potts
1 month ago

So they announce a 12 billion foreign ‘climate aid’ package, on top of an 8 billion foreign ‘migrant aid’ package. Then have the temerity to claim that there’s a 20 billion shortfall. Apparently this can only be resolved by taxing and cutting services for us Britons.
There IS no 20 billion shortfall if they can choose to spaff 20 billion on new foreign aid. That’s simply what they have decided to spend money on instead of on us. This government is just a gigantic virtue signalling exercise that doesn’t give two hoots about our own national suicide. Just as long as they can strut and fawn at Davos.

Victor James
Victor James
1 month ago

“They announce a 12 billion foreign ‘climate aid’ package, on top of an 8 billion foreign ‘migrant aid’”

Labour, leftists in general, love to rub peoples noses in it and dare them to say something. They are nasty cruel people, bullies, and always have been.
So, no way this is a coincidence.

Adrian Smith
Adrian Smith
1 month ago

Not wasting £Bns on net zero nonsense would help a lot too.

John Howes
John Howes
1 month ago
Reply to  Adrian Smith

Depriving Millibrain (not misspelled just brain size) of oxygen would help.

Robbie K
Robbie K
1 month ago

Not only was the winter payment withdrawn but Reeves also cancelled the social care reforms that were planned – pensioners got absolutely whacked by all this. Why do it now? Well apparently many of them will be dead before the next election.

Dennis Roberts
Dennis Roberts
1 month ago
Reply to  Robbie K

I would guess pensioners were whacked because they were very noticeably unwacked in the last bout of austerity and the years that followed it.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 month ago

The cupboard is bare and we need to cut spending and increase taxes. Yet we give a 10 billion pay rise and give 20 billion in foreign aid. Huge cost over run 6.5 billion caused by Starmers law. That’s right Starmers law the one he won against a Labour government where we have to pay immigrants benefits.
The 9 billion for the new British Energy company
45 billion and counting no need to spend
Easy savings
Stop paying immigrants money 15 billion
Stop HS 2 incalculable savings
Stop the rail subsibity another 5 billion or so
Remove the 200;000 increase in the civil service since COVID 8 billion
Green subsides billions
Reduce the 5 million who refuse to work
The only spending cut will be the 1.5 billion taken from pensioners

Dennis Roberts
Dennis Roberts
1 month ago

A nice debunking of MMT nonsense.

Colin Haller
Colin Haller
1 month ago
Reply to  Dennis Roberts

Er, did you read what he wrote? The MMT insight that there is no solvency constraint is correct: precisely as Mosler, Mitchell, Wray et al point out there is rather an inflation constraint — as Pilkington (who also understands the difference) elucidates.

Brendan O'Leary
Brendan O'Leary
1 month ago

I wasn’t around for postwar rationing but I do remember the grimness and stagnation of 70s Britain. I arrived in the Winter of Discontent. Anyone who went through that as an adult will know why Thatcher was necessary.
The so-called austerity of Cameron/Clegg was nothing by comparison.

Richard Calhoun
Richard Calhoun
1 month ago

I witnessed the Winter of discontent and the Thatcher recipe which pulled the UK out of near bankruptcy.
Now we have a Labour govt inheriting a £2.6 trillion public debt and with many of our public institutions broken.
This Labour Govt have a monumental task ahead of them, I think we should allow them the time up until the Autumn statement to announce the measures to deal with this emergency.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 month ago

Fair comment IMO. I’m not hopeful though.

John Howes
John Howes
1 month ago

Rubbish, it will be a continuing state of emergency for Reeves.

Victor James
Victor James
1 month ago

Reeves, square headed fringe bob dominatrix, is lathering up the rectal d***o. But don’t complain, you were warned. You literally walked into the dungeon and paid for the upcoming service.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 month ago
Reply to  Victor James

Getting excited, are we?

Bruce Fleming
Bruce Fleming
1 month ago
Reply to  Victor James

This may be UnHerd but I will find that dominatrix image difficult to UnSee. 

Jake Raven
Jake Raven
1 month ago

“Rachel Reeves is bringing back austerity”“The first question that should be asked about Labour’s turn towards harsh austerity”
Is this a joke? Reeves is spaffing money on unproductive civil servants, doctors, renewables, foreign aid, immigration, foreign wars and creating even more quangos. How is that austerity?

Richard Calhoun
Richard Calhoun
1 month ago

I think you will find Philip that it was the @Conservatives
who drove the UK into the fiscal ditch … inheriting a £700 Billion public debt in 2010 they managed after 14 years in Govt to leave a public debt of £2.6 Trillion.

Charlie Brooks
Charlie Brooks
1 month ago

Your numbers seem wrong. Public debt in 2010 was 1.21 trillion. In 2019, before Covid, it was 1.8 trillion (adjusted for inflation) It then increased during and after Covid, in line with every other advanced economy in the world.

As a percentage of GDP, debt was 74% in 2010 and 85% in 2019.

Yes it increased, but hardly the “fiscal ditch” you mention. Furthermore this is all public data, Labour was hardly surprised by any of it.

John Howes
John Howes
1 month ago

Labour were extremely supportive of furlough payments, can’t wait for their first crisis.

David Lindsay
David Lindsay
1 month ago

The Tories and Reform UK look set to vote against the withdrawal of the winter fuel payment from 10 million pensioners. All four stripes of Unionist from Northern Ireland voted against the two-child benefit cap and will no doubt vote against this. Labour is to the right of the lot of them.

Su Mac
Su Mac
1 month ago

No surprises for anyone paying attention then.

I highly recommend the author’s podcast Multipolarity

Edward De Beukelaer
Edward De Beukelaer
1 month ago

It is all good and well criticising what goes wrong and discussion who is at fault. I would like to see more discussion on what the solutions are. Just cutting cost for the sake of it because you do not like certain spending is not the same as making a plan for a successful free society, where most people can find their spot, where people work together. The harsh political, black and white, discourse does not serve this purpose, it goes against it …. I am sure we are a well developed society that can have a balance discussion and find a direction.
Such a direction needs to take into account that life is only possible in respectful relation to all other life, that creating acceptable life conditions, and provide some purpose in life, will get most people on board. Do away with all form of corruption (which always makes a country poorer = financial lobby) through a justice system that works (well, one has to be optimist…), and provide a minimum quality education (which is one of the best investments to improve health of a society = less cost for health care etc…).
https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/338958/Eurohealth-26-3-37-38-eng.pdf
Complexity and biocomplexity: Overview of some historical aspects and philosophical basis Srdjan Kesi´