Article / 23 May 2017 at 12:45 GMT

Labour's policies leave limited fiscal space

Managing Partner / Spotlight Group
United Kingdom
  • All governments have a role to play in the running of an economy 
  • States must be wary of overspending financed by higher taxes and borrowing 
  • IMF report shows the UK has a smallish economic "safety net"  
The next inhabitant of 10 Downing Street will be faced with a host 
of difficult economic issues. Photo: Shutterstock

By Stephen Pope

Economists at the International Monetary Fund have suggested that if governments could choose between running a high or low level of debt compared to GDP, then all else being equal they should travel along the low-level route. 

The reason for this is clear. Carrying a high level of debt relative to GDP implies governments must spend vast amounts of tax revenue to service the debt interest and redeem paper that is set to mature. 

That is, of course, money that cannot be used on anything else.

In the 2014–15 financial year, the UK government spent £34 billion overall on servicing its debt, amounting to 4.6% of overall spending. Of course, the government also receives interest and dividends on the assets that it holds; taking this into account, spending on net debt interest payments was £28bn, or 3.8% of total spending.

To spend or not to spend, that is the question

If large scale state spending is to continue, then the government will have to seek further access to capital markets as it rolls debt over or borrows even more. The alternative is to impose wider and deeper taxes. These are, of course, usually targeted against the engines of wealth and creativity, i.e. business and high-net worth individuals. 

What is often overlooked by governments that view life through a socialist prism is that such taxes are actually a fetter on the economy (for more on this, see last week's column).

Britain’s big choice

It is now just over two weeks until the UK general election on June 8. The major parties have launched their manifestos and with Labour’s pre-launch leak, the Conservatives' wobbly weekend over social care, and the Liberal-Democrats not making any genuine breakthrough, one clear issue that can divide the parties is their approach to managing the level of debt the UK will carry in absolute numbers and relative to GDP.

Data from Oxford Economics would suggest that while GDP may expand faster under the stimulus that the Labour and Liberal-Democrats seek to deploy, the cost of borrowing – i.e. the yield to maturity on Gilts – will rise by far more than under the Conservatives.
UK Economy
Source: Oxford Economics 

I would dispute the projected growth paths as I do not believe a larger level of state spending or engagement in the management of the economy is more productive. Indeed, under the Labour model the role of more powerful trade unions would be a growth disrupter. 

With the Liberal-Democrats, the desire to hold another Brexit referendum may well just lead to even more uncertainty. I wanted to remain in the European Union at last year's referendum, however, we all should respect the democratic answer given by the people of the UK.

Run the debt, or pay it down?

When a government is carrying a heavy debt burden relative to its GDP should it look to tighten the public purse and use austerity to engineer a debt reduction or take advantage of low interest rates to invest? 

Of course, the answer one feels in one’s heart will be fashioned according to one’s political will. I would prefer a lower debt level and a smaller state. That does not mean, however, going down the purest route of “laissez-faire”. There is a level of state engagement that is healthy and a net positive contributor to growth. Matters such as defence, law and order, and parts of health and education can be well run by the state and the regions provided there is accountability.

A more appropriate response is to consider the degree of “fiscal space” a government has at its disposal. This is a theoretical concept that evaluates the distance between a government’s debt to GDP ratio and an “upper limit” that has been calculated by Moody’s Investor Services.

The conclusion is that if a nation allows its debt to rise to a level that cramps the fiscal space, it will not be long before radical action will be required to avoid a debt default. Such a measure allows different nations to be ranked depending on how far their debt is from their upper threshold.

Like an extended traffic light signal, the categories for nations is: safe (green), caution (yellow), significant risk (amber) and grave risk (red).

It is best to consider the measure as a good indicator of how proofed or, alternatively, how vulnerable a government’s finances are to a shock.
Fiscal Space Source: Moody’s Investor Services 

From the chart above one will see that I have placed a three-band subdivision on the green or “safe” category. The UK has precious little room to play with and as the nation’s recent economic history shows, the budget deficit reached a massive 10.2% of GDP in 2009 under Labour’s vast spending programme. It has been brought down to 3.0% at the end of 2016.

I have no doubt some readers may wish to argue with me by pointing out that the UK has seen its debt level (in absolute terms and relative to GDP) rise since the election of 2010. I would respond by pointing to the fact that the IMF analysis classifies the UK as a “marginal green case”, implying the nation does not have much protection in the event of a downturn.

In addition, we have seen from its manifesto that Labour are looking to impose a massive tax hike on business and individuals who dare to earn over £80,000 per annum. The IMF has a warning for Labour in that they calculate that the expected costs of the higher taxation from the disincentives to work created by increased tax rates are likely to outweigh the expected benefits delivered to the economy.

UK Economy
Source: Oxford Economics

Should the UK raise more debt? As said before, it all depends on one’s political perspective. If economic growth is faster that the growth of debt, then the level of debt relative to GDP will fall and therefore increase the so called “fiscal-space”. However, will lasting growth emanate from a larger state fed by taxes and borrowing that tries to manage the economy from the centre, or from the flexibility of the free market?

Economic history is littered with failed investments from state-run investment banks. Too many programmes get the go-ahead because a political debt must be repaid and inefficiencies mount up. The state should do no more than protect and educate the population while ensuring sensible regulation keeps business operators on the straight and legal path.

The chart above, when coupled with the first, may make one think the best of both worlds would come from the Liberal-Democrat proposal. Let’s me just remind the reader that since April 18 when the election was called, Liberal-Democrat support has fallen from 11% to just 9%. Their refusal to get past the result of the EU referendum last year has not served them well.

I am sure my followers know where I stand, but I will nonetheless state my view, which is that the government should not just borrow because it can to fulfill endless political promises. Rather, the responsible thing is to maintain a safety margin so that when the next crisis comes there is the scope to raise funds and thus smooth out the shock to the system.

— Edited by Michael McKenna

Stephen Pope is managing partner at Spotlight Ideas


The Saxo Bank Group entities each provide execution-only service and access to permitting a person to view and/or use content available on or via the website is not intended to and does not change or expand on this. Such access and use are at all times subject to (i) The Terms of Use; (ii) Full Disclaimer; (iii) The Risk Warning; (iv) the Rules of Engagement and (v) Notices applying to and/or its content in addition (where relevant) to the terms governing the use of hyperlinks on the website of a member of the Saxo Bank Group by which access to is gained. Such content is therefore provided as no more than information. In particular no advice is intended to be provided or to be relied on as provided nor endorsed by any Saxo Bank Group entity; nor is it to be construed as solicitation or an incentive provided to subscribe for or sell or purchase any financial instrument. All trading or investments you make must be pursuant to your own unprompted and informed self-directed decision. As such no Saxo Bank Group entity will have or be liable for any losses that you may sustain as a result of any investment decision made in reliance on information which is available on or as a result of the use of the Orders given and trades effected are deemed intended to be given or effected for the account of the customer with the Saxo Bank Group entity operating in the jurisdiction in which the customer resides and/or with whom the customer opened and maintains his/her trading account. When trading through your contracting Saxo Bank Group entity will be the counterparty to any trading entered into by you. does not contain (and should not be construed as containing) financial, investment, tax or trading advice or advice of any sort offered, recommended or endorsed by Saxo Bank Group and should not be construed as a record of ourtrading prices, or as an offer, incentive or solicitation for the subscription, sale or purchase in any financial instrument. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, would be considered as a marketing communication under relevant laws. Please read our disclaimers:
- Notification on Non-Independent Invetment Research
- Full disclaimer

Check your inbox for a mail from us to fully activate your profile. No mail? Have us re-send your verification mail