What are the chancellor's fiscal rules and could they be set to change again?
Just days after the chancellor's spring statement balancing act saw her squeak back into line with her fiscal rules, Donald Trump took a bazooka to the global economic order on which the constraints are based.
Rachel Reeves had boosted economic growth here, cut spending there, and forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) placed her back on course to comply with her self-imposed targets.
But the official spending watchdog had already warned that a trade war sparked by the US president would knock her back off track, and discussions are already underway about how Reeves can make the sums work in time for a full-fat Budget this autumn.
What are the fiscal rules?
The chancellor's fiscal rules dictate that she cannot borrow to fund day-to-day spending, and that debt must be falling as a share of national income by the end of a five-year forecast period.
They are in place to instil confidence in the markets that ministers are firmly in control of the public finances – and that Britain will be able to comfortably pay its debts.
Can the chancellor change or scrap them?
The fiscal rules were introduced in 1997 and applied for more than a decade in their first iteration. They have been changed nine times since then – most recently by Reeves herself in October last year, when she moved her focus to maintaining a current budget balance between -0.5 per cent and +0.5 per cent of GDP rather than following Jeremy Hunt 's previous rule, which specified that borrowing must be kept below 3 per cent of GDP.
The chancellor also distinguished between borrowing for investment and borrowing for day-to-day spending, a move that was welcomed at the time by economists and the Institute for Government.
So tweaks can be made to allow the chancellor varying degrees of wriggle room. The ultimate barrier is the extent to which Reeves can change the rules while maintaining the confidence of the markets.
But no chancellor will scrap the fiscal rules altogether. Not only would doing so spook investors, it would prove politically toxic for whichever party chose to do it.
Why hasn't Reeves made further changes?
The chancellor was urged before her spring statement last month to tweak the fiscal rules rather than attempt to balance the books on the backs of benefit claimants. But Reeves chose the latter.
Not only is the Treasury worried about the political optics of being seen to shift the goalposts: it is concerned about the way any changes would be received by the financial markets.
No change would prove as toxic as Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng 's approach to the public finances, which saw the former PM and her chancellor produce a mini-Budget with no accompanying forecasts from the OBR.
But Institute for Fiscal Studies director Paul Johnson has warned that the rules 'are about as loose as is reasonable', and said: 'We've seen how jittery the markets are.'
But is a tweak on the way?
There has been a decisive shift in the government's language on the economy since Trump's tariff war began.
Keir Starmer had previously talked about the world entering a 'new era' for defence and security; he now talks about being in a new era for trade and the economy.
The prime minister could be laying the groundwork for a major change, similar to that seen in Germany, against the backdrop of what he has called a new economic order.
Whatever the PM is planning, his change of tone suggests that a big change in approach is on the way.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
36 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Trump secretary sets the record straight after being 'body-checked' by Elon Musk
Trump's Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent faced an unusual line of questioning on Wednesday when he testified on Capitol Hill. During a hearing on his department's budget before the Ways and Means Committee, Bessent was grilled about whether he really tackled Elon Musk in the White House last month. 'Mr. Secretary, how are you doing?' Representative Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.) said innocuously. 'So far, so good,' Bessent quipped back. 'Okay. I was just curious because I know Elon Musk body checked you at the White House. No animosity to Elon Musk, right?' Gomez continued. 'You know that?' Bessent asked about the sparring event. 'That's what I heard,' Gomez responded. Bessent had been partaking in three days of trade negotiations in London and had not yet been questioned about the story. 'So you believe, you believe what you read on Breitbart is what you are telling us, Congressman,' Bessent pressed. 'I didn't know ... If it's too sensitive for you I won't ask that question, but let me move' Gomez flubbed. 'I will take South Carolina over South Africa any day', Bessent replied, referring to his home state versus Musk's nation of birth. Musk was spotted with a black eye as he delivered a sort of farewell address in the Oval Office upon departing from his role as a 'special government employee' heading up Trump's Department of Government Efficiency DOGE). At the time, Musk claimed that the black eye was the result of roughhousing with his young son, X í¿ A-12, who is more commonly know as X. But speculation grew as more was revealed about his tense standoff with Bessent. Former Chief Strategist Steve Bannon told in May that Musk's turbulent time in the White House was marred when he was confronted over wild promises to save the administration 'a trillion dollars'. That's when an irate Musk physically 'shoved' 62-year-old Bessent. 'Scott Bessent called him out and said, "You promised us a trillion dollars (in cuts), and now you're at like $100 billion, and nobody can find anything, what are you doing?"' Bannon revealed. And that's when Elon got physical. It's a sore subject with him. 'It wasn't an argument, it was a physical confrontation. Elon basically shoved him.' Bannon said the physical altercation came as the two billionaires moved from the Oval Office to outside Chief of Staff Susie Wiles' office, and then outside the office of the then National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz.
The Independent
38 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump's military parade is a US outlier in peacetime but parades and reviews have a long history
Troops marching in lockstep. Patriotic tunes filling the air. The commander in chief looking on at it all. The military parade commemorating the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary and coinciding with President Donald Trump's 79th birthday will be a new spectacle for many Americans. This will not be the first U.S. military parade. However, it is unusual outside of wartime, and Trump's approach stands out compared to his predecessors. The Army had long planned a celebration for its semi-quincentennial on June 14. Trump has wanted to preside over a grand military parade since his first presidency from 2017 to 2021. When he took office a second time, he found the ideal convergence and ratcheted the Pentagon's plans into a full-scale military parade on his birthday. The president, who is expected to speak in Washington as part of the affair, pitches the occasion as a way to celebrate U.S. power and service members' sacrifice. But there are bipartisan concerns about the cost as well as concerns about whether Trump is blurring traditional understandings of what it means to be a civilian commander in chief. Early US troop reviews Ceremonial reviews — troops looking their best and conducting drills for top commanders — trace back through medieval kingdoms to ancient empires of Rome, Persia and China. The pageantry continued in the young U.S. republic: Early presidents held military reviews as part of July 4th independence celebrations. That ended with James K. Polk, who was president from 1845 to 1849. President Andrew Johnson resurrected the tradition in 1865, holding a two-day 'Grand Review of the Armies' five weeks after Abraham Lincoln's assassination. It came after Johnson declared the Civil War over, a show of force meant to salve a war-weary nation — though more fighting and casualties would occur. Infantry, cavalry and artillery units — 145,000 soldiers, and even cattle — traversed Pennsylvania Avenue. Johnson, his Cabinet and top Army officers, including Ulysses S. Grant, Lincoln's last commanding general and the future 18th president, watched from a White House viewing stand. Spanish-American War and World War I: An era of victory parades begins The Spanish-American War was the first major international conflict for a reunited nation since the Civil War. It ended in a U.S. victory that established an American empire: Spain ceded Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Guam, and the U.S. purchased the Philippines for $20 million. Puerto Rico and Guam remain U.S. territories. New York City hosted multiple celebrations of a new global power. In August 1898, a fleet of warships, including the Brooklyn, the Texas, and the Oregon, sailed up the North River, more commonly known today as the Hudson River. American inventor Thomas Edison filmed the floating parade. The following September, New York hosted a naval and street parade to welcome home Rear Adm. George Dewey, who joined President William McKinley in a viewing stand. Many U.S. cities held World War I victory parades a few decades later. But neither Washington nor President Woodrow Wilson were the focal point. In Boston, a million civilians celebrated 20,000 troops in 1919. New York honored 25,000 troops marching in full uniform and combat gear. New York was the parade epicenter again for World War II On June 13, 1942, as U.S. involvement in World War II accelerated, about 30,000 people formed a mobilization parade in New York City. Participants included Army and Navy personnel, American Women's Voluntary Services members, Boy Scouts and military school cadets. Scores of floats rolled, too. One carried a massive bust of President Franklin Roosevelt, who did not attend. Less than four years later, the 82nd Airborne Division and Sherman tanks led a victory parade down Manhattan's Fifth Avenue. Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, the Allied commander during World War II, rode in a victory parade in Washington, D.C. In 1952, Eisenhower would join Grant and George Washington as top wartime commanders elevated to the presidency following their military achievements. Other World War II generals were honored in other homecoming parades. A long parade gap, despite multiple wars The U.S. did not hold national or major city parades after wars in Korea and Vietnam. Both ended without clear victory; Vietnam, especially, sparked bitter societal division, enough so that President Gerald Ford opted against a strong military presence in 1976 bicentennial celebrations, held a year after the fall of Saigon. Washington finally hosted a victory parade in 1991 after the first Persian Gulf War. The Constitution Avenue lineup included 8,000 troops, tanks, Patriot missiles and representatives of the international coalition, led by the U.S., that quickly drove an invading Iraq out of Kuwait. The commander in chief, George H.W. Bush, is the last U.S. president to have held an active-duty military post. He had been a World War II combat pilot who survived his plane being shot down over the Pacific Ocean. Veterans of the second Iraq and Afghanistan wars that followed the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks have not been honored in national parades. Inaugurations and a flight suit Inaugural parades include and sometimes feature military elements. Eisenhower's 1953 inaugural parade, at the outset of the Cold War, included 22,000 service members and an atomic cannon. Eight years later, President John F. Kennedy, a World War II Naval officer, watched armored tanks, Army and Navy personnel, dozens of missiles and Navy boats pass in front of his reviewing stand. More recent inaugurations have included honor guards, academy cadets, military bands and other personnel but not large combat assets. Notably, U.S. presidents, even when leading or attending military events, wear civilian attire rather than military garb, a standard set by Washington, who also eschewed being called 'General Washington' in favor of 'Mr. President.' Perhaps the lone exception came in 2003, when President George W. Bush, who had been a National Guard pilot, wore a flight suit when he landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln and declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq, which U.S. forces had invaded six weeks earlier. The aircraft carrier was not a parade venue but the president emerged to raucous cheers from uniformed service members. He put on a business suit to deliver a nationally televised speech in front a 'Mission Accomplished' banner. As the war dragged on to a less decisive outcome, that scene and its enduring images would become a political liability for the president. ___
The National
44 minutes ago
- The National
Donald Trump is reshaping democracy for authoritarians
It depicts US president Donald Trump as a firefighter arriving at an emergency scene somewhere – most likely Los Angeles – declaring: 'I'm here to put out the fire.' Facing off against him is a lone US citizen who duly points out to the firefighter that what, in fact, he's carrying is not a water hose but a flamethrower. To say that it encapsulates what is happening in Los Angeles right now would be an understatement, for the United States is changing in ways rarely seen before. READ MORE: SNP minister responds to 'secret meeting to discuss John Swinney leadership' reports Some, rightly, will argue it was ever going to be thus after the last US presidential election, and Trump was unleashed by the American people on themselves. In retrospect, doubtless some Americans regret electing Trump now that they see him set about the nation, brandishing every available tool or weapon capable of causing division or harm. 'Chainsaw' or 'flamethrower,' these have become Trump's weapons of choice in reshaping his country's democracy in tandem with imposing a blueprint of authoritarian rule. Yes, Trump has insisted that sending in federal troops is aimed at restoring calm or 'putting out the fire' of radical 'left-wing' agitators. He's even suggested invoking the Insurrection Act to quell the protesters in Los Angeles. But the real insurrection here – as back in January 2021 – is one ignited by Trump himself. There is a familiar even deeper historical pattern emerging here too, one that I was reminded of while watching a repeat on BBC4 recently of the landmark series, Rise Of The Nazis. As one newspaper review of the original series aired back in 1999 rightly noted, it served as a lesson in 'how easily – and petrifyingly quickly – a democratic country can move to a totalitarian dictatorship'. (Image: Evelyn Hockstein, REUTERS) Those who say such an observation is nothing but hyperbole in relation to America right now, need to think again. For watching the Rise Of The Nazis is to recall the ease with which propaganda, economic exploitation, and political manipulation came together and were harnessed for authoritarian rule. Trump like Hitler – and all those with authoritarian tendencies – know the political value in triggering those same tendencies among supporters by presenting them with a perceived threat to their shared way of life. Just as the Nazis manufactured crises to work to their advantage, so too does the Trump administration. Right now, the federal intervention in the US – again like 1930s Germany – is aimed at creating a showdown by painting a picture of a threat of disorder to the country at large. In Los Angeles, the template being deployed was outlined succinctly this week in The Economist magazine and goes as follows. First, 'announce an immigration crackdown on a city whose leadership does not want it, wait for protests, then call in the troops to put down the protesters. Cracking heads serves as a warning to other cities that might resist. It is also a signal to MAGA loyalists that Trump is doing what they elected him for'. (Image: MARK FELIX, AFP /AFP via Getty Images) Trump then is increasingly keen on using the military to quell protests against his policies. Sound familiar? 'We're gonna have troops everywhere,' he said, when asked about the situation in Los Angeles. And that's just the start, for Americans will see lots more US military personnel and weaponry on the streets of Washington this weekend as parades marking the US Army's 250th anniversary get underway. That there are echoes here of the Nuremberg rallies of 30s Nazi Germany has not been lost on many. The deployment of federal troops and US Marines in Los Angeles aside, we've also seen paratroopers drop from the sky with Trump giving a partisan encore speech to troops at Fort Bragg. This weekend it will culminate in a 'big beautiful' parade to coincide with the 'great leader's' birthday that will make last month's Victory Day parade in Moscow look quaint by comparison. Only the most blinkered could fail to see what Trump is doing here. This, after all, is a president with whom the US military has by and large had little truck until now. Trump's timely diagnosis of bone spurs in his heels that led to his medical exemption from the military during Vietnam never did him any favours in the eyes of many veterans. His unwillingness to recognise their sacrifice in fighting fascism in the Second World War led also to that infamous remark that Europe's military cemeteries 'were filled with losers'. But now, for Trump, it's time to think again, for that's what despots and dictators do when they need the military onside. All this wooing of America's armed forces with false praise allows Trump to make a point of showing executive force he always coveted but could only dream of during his first term. Admittedly, not everyone is convinced by Trump's newfound 'celebration' of America's military might, with reports that US veterans are split over their president's true motives. While some see it as a thing to be proud of, others remain wary of Trump's manipulation of it for his own political ends. Which takes me back to events unfolding in Los Angeles, for here the devil lies in the detail. That detail is how Trump's administration has cited a provision in the armed forces code allowing the president to put National Guard members under federal control when there is a 'rebellion or danger of a rebellion' against the authority of the US government. It's almost as if Trump and his cabal know what's coming with regard to America's future as they cynically seek to expand the powers of his presidency by riding roughshod over America's political system of checks and balances between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Some might say so what? Trump, they argue, was elected democratically by a sweeping majority. But so too have other leaders who went on to consolidate authoritarian regimes. Back in 1930, while appearing before a constitutional court, Adolf Hitler brazenly informed the court that once he had achieved power through legal means, he intended to shape the government as he saw fit. 'So, only through constitutional means?' a judge asked, to which Hitler's now infamous sharp reply was, 'Jawohl'. Yes indeed. Just as Germany transformed politically in the 1930s before the world's eyes, likewise the momentum in America's shift toward authoritarian rule is accelerating by the day. It's high time we sat up and took notice of just what that could mean for us all.
