Britain needs to stop fiddling with fiscal policy

Unlock the editor’s digest in free

FT editor Raula Khalaf selected his favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.

When the Labor Party took power last July, UK Prime Minister Sir Care Starmar said his government would promote economic “stability”. Nevertheless, its outlook on the management of the public finance in Britain is still Hafzard. Chancellor Rachel Reeves left only a thin £ 9.9bn headroom against his main financial rule to balance the current budget, forced the updated economic forecast to make $ 14 billion to spend the buffer in the March Spring Statement. In recent weeks, long -term UK’s gilt yield has pushed even more. To avoid breaking the rules of the Reens, economists now projects that more cutbacks or revenue-raisters will be required in the budget in the autumn.

Britain’s financial feedling has come to the notice of the IMF. Tuesday, in between The annual health check In the UK economy, it suggests “refinement” in the UK financial structure to prevent tweets frequently. The government’s advice should be paid attention. Expenditure plans should be adapted to the original changes in interest rates, inflation or growth. However, there is a balance for injury. Regularly reduces the clarity that needs to be planned in front of families and traders to change departmental budgets and taxes. Fast consistency to meet financial rules also increases the risk of bad policy making.

Reeves allies emphasized that the Chancellor’s next budget would not use the financial rules he had kept last October. It is cute. The limit of stable expenditure is necessary to arouse discipline in government departments. Earlier this year, the government has sensitively passed a “certificate for the budget responsibility”, which includes the importance of independent assessment by promising financial surveillance and labor promotion to transfer only one “major” financial events every year. Nevertheless, it did not prevent the government in the last -minute spending on welfare expenditure in March before the original budget planned in autumn.

How can the Chancellor avoid financial sparkle in the future? First, his expenditure should be maintained against his expenditure rules, especially during the higher economic uncertainty. When the forecast for bond yield and growth is unstable, small headrooms are responsible for rapid erosion. These piles press the government because investors estimate the need for cut and tax increase in the future. Ideally, instead of a hurry, the larger headroom absorbs shifts in economic forecasts.

Second, the government can improve how the government communicates with the office to predict the budget responsibility. For example, the Chancellor may emphasize the single-image of the headroom financial surveillance, and instead of the confidence bands around financial surveillance estimates, its buffets can calibrate. This reduces the risk of being overly affected by the underlying uncertain forecast estimate.

Another option is to evaluate the financial rules only once every year in the budget. This will reduce the pressure on the government to change the policy in his spring statement. It says that any changes here must be considered that OBR’s forecast will play an important role in providing independent information to the financial markets of the public. Uncertainty may encourage self-pursuing anxiety about financial stability. Even better, the government can make it clear that policy changes do not require policy changes beyond the main financial events of small financial rules.

Labor has improved Britain’s financial structure. The more emphasis on the current budget creates more space for the government to invest in Britain’s unnecessary productivity. Its certificate also includes the importance of OBR. The government should persevere with its rules, but it should change the way it is in them.