There is a document that came out amid last week’s hubbub that apparently many of the candidates for the country’s takeover have not had time to study closely.
The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) report on financial sustainability and risks identified a number of long-term borrowing challenges arising from an aging society and a shrinking workforce in a more dangerous world simultaneously striving to reach net zero reach.
But even those skeptical of 50-year forecasts would have seen a clear message about the Conservatives’ own program plans and announced targets, which even at this early stage seem difficult to reconcile with the immediate tax-cut parade on offer.
The Conservatives were elected on a manifesto in which they pledged to balance the current budget by mid-decade. So that means balancing daily spending with tax revenues and reducing debt as a percentage of GDP—also by mid-decade.
The sum of the government’s measures to date has significantly increased the tax burden by 3% of GDP. This has funded an increase in public spending of 2% of GDP, leaving a 1% or around £30bn buffer of so-called headroom.
Most candidates seem to use all of that in one form or another. And then some.
We await more detailed reports on their plans. For example, those who promise to reverse the recent increase in Social Security are not yet clear if that includes the threshold increases already underway, which has rolled back about half the increase. The corporate tax changes are just massive.
Risks of Growing
But the really big point is that the £30billion no longer exists. As the head of the OBR, Richard Hughes, told me last week:
“We must remember the risks to the growth prospects. You have risks related to energy prices, all of which are already rising above the levels we saw in our last forecast. They have risks for interest rates, which also rise above the levels we saw in the March forecasts.”
To put it simply: the cost of living crisis is threatening a concrete recession or at least stagnation. May GDP numbers due Wednesday will show the economy set to contract this quarter. Cabinet ministers vying for number 10 are now openly welcoming forecasts showing the UK with the worst forecast for next year’s growth (among advanced economies) – the same forecasts that were downplayed last year. These forecasts are now being prepared as an argument for a stimulus.
So if the tax burden is to be contained, perhaps these candidates will borrow more and once again forsake the latest tax rules and the promises of the 2019 Manifesto. Or some of the promised post-pandemic state enlargement – from funding social care to reducing NHS waiting lists to “leveling” funding – will have to be undone. As Hughes put it to me of those who now advocate tax cuts, “They may also need to reconsider some of their spending priorities if they are to meet those fiscal targets that they set out in the Manifesto.”
There is obviously a broader political canvas here. This leadership contest is designed to impress Conservative MPs first, and then their membership. In theory, that would point to an appeal for low taxes and small-state thinking. But that is not always the same as the fiscal conservatism of balanced budgets. And how coherent this all is, for example with the appeal of former Labor territories won in the last election, is another interesting question.
And then the bigger questions about even bigger changes, like effectively losing £30 billion a year in fuel taxes and funding an aging society with a shrinking workforce, crop up even bigger in the pages of the OBR document.
Add Comment