Cameron wants to reduce private debt - but when and how?
A rapid repayment of debt is a recipe for recession, not recovery.
By Gavin Kelly and... Published 05 October 2011 12:54
According to reports this morning, David Cameron will use his conference speech this afternoon to call on Britain's households to pay down their debts. He will say that dealing with debt means not just paying down public debt but also "households - all of us - paying off the credit card and store card bills." Such comments would go beyond the government's existing argument about the importance of dealing with the public deficit to an argument that about reducing the UK's levels of personal debt.
What are we to make of this new message? In one sense it fits with the government's wider narrative of Britain having maxed out the nation's credit card. In this respect, Cameron's comments are a statement of the obvious, albeit an important one. The UK's household debt levels remain crushingly high both by historical and international standards. Sooner or later it's vital that they come down. The Prime Minister is also right to say that this was no ordinary recession, and that this will be no ordinary recovery.
But in another sense the comments are a dramatic and risky escalation of the government's argument on debt. That's because, although they fit the government's story, they run counter to the economic logic that underlies the current forecasts for UK recovery. As we pointed out earlier this year, the most recent forecasts from the Office Budget of Responsibility, published in March, say that the UK's stock of personal debt will rise, not fall, in the coming years - and not by a little but by a lot. The OBR projects that household debt will grow from £1.6 trillion in 2011 to £2.1 trillion in 2015, a rise from 160 percent of household disposable income to 175 percent. That growth is expected to sit alongside low savings, with the ratio of household saving to disposable income falling to roughly 3.5 percent - half its average over the past 50 years.
In the current economic climate, it's hard to overstate the importance of this difference of opinion over what will - or what should - happen to household debt. Put simply, the OBR's projections for growth rest on their forecasts for household consumption, which rest on their forecasts for household debt. If the OBR were to be proved wrong on debt - if it were to fall rather than rise - then their forecasts for consumption would presumably need to be downgraded, as would their forecasts for growth.
The following chart puts this is all into stark perspective. In all recent recessions in the UK, consumption growth had returned at this point, airlifting the economy to recovery. By contrast, today's trends in household consumption are a millstone around the neck of the economy.
Household consumption following the onset of recession
% fall in real total household consumption

As well as running against OBR forecasts, the Prime Minister's message doesn't chime with the current reality of the household behaviour. Savings are currently falling not rising. The most recent data revealed that the household savings ratio had dipped from 5.1 to 4.6 percent. A recent poll carried out for the Resolution Foundation by ipsos MORI helped to explain why: almost half of all people on low-to-middle incomes now say they are running out of cash every month, and more than one in four say they're unable to make regular savings. People aren't overspending - they are reducing their savings just to stay afloat.
Of course, none of this is to deny that private debt must fall. The question is: when and how? Reducing the UK's stock of personal debt is likely to be a slow process. It needs to take place via a careful paying down of bills on the back of a recovery of real earnings, enabling families to save a bit more without immediate and dramatic reductions in consumption. The alternative option - a rapid repayment of debt at a time of falling incomes, fragile consumption, rapidly weakening export markets, and sharp public sector cuts - is a recipe for recession, not recovery. The Prime Minister should be careful what he wishes for.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists





















8 comments
Totally agree but only the rich and well educated need apply and no dependents. With an aging population, we need no more baggage.
good posting. Zalando Gutschein
You're right. The OBR forecasts, make the £500bn increase in household debt a *requirement* of its growth projections - and thus, arguably, the debt increase is a key part of the strategy upon which the government's growth plans rest.
Cameron, with his homilies about paying off debt, opposes and endangers his own growth plan. Perverse in the extreme - and a major question mark for his competence. I heard he got a first in PPE - how?
Paying down credit card debt surely makes sense when banks are charging 30% APR for it. Unless you believe that banks should be entitled to such usurious rates on as large a sum as possible, of course...
In reality, consumer credit outstanding is already back at 2005 levels (£209bn) having peaked at £236bn. Most of the decline has simply been put on the mortgage, which continues to be heavily subsidised by low interest rate funding from the BoE, extensive forbearance, and cross subsidy from harsh terms for business lending and unsecured consumer lending. Banks can't square the circle of increasing capital reserves and reducing gearing and lending more to business if they can't cut lending to households. In reality that would mean cut the stock of mortgage debt by offering smaller mortgages (not merely fewer mortgages), and letting house prices fall. Want to propose that?
"If the OBR were to be proved wrong on debt - if it were to fall rather than rise - then their forecasts for consumption would presumably need to be downgraded, as would their forecasts for growth."
This is complete rubbish. There is no causation here.
If there is lower demand for consumer borrowing, then somebody else necessarily has an excess supply of assets (capital) which they must decide how to deploy.
If they cannot get a return from lending to consumers, they could, for example, lend to businesses, who hire more, or invest in capital, etc.
You must make clear what "ceteris paribus" assumptions you make. You should presume the Bank of England sets monetary policy to ensure the expected level of aggregate demand is sufficient to meet the inflation target.
With that assumption in place, any fall in household consumption demand must be offset by monetary policy action, which could, for example, increase external demand via a loosening of monetary policy and a devaluation of sterling.
You are an idiot par excellence if you are paying 15%+ real interest on credit card debt versus an 3% negative interest rate on savings or a near 0% real interest rate on mortgage debt.
Also, the paradox of thrift only applies to a closed economy. Businesses look to lower prices, increase productivity and export in the event of low domestic demand.
And these are all bad things.
More economic lunacy from the left - as if we haven't had enough of that.
Imported inflation has the last government to thank for their policy of QE devaluing Sterling and making food and energy prices rocket.
Cameron, with his homilies about paying off debt, opposes and endangers his own growth plan. Perverse in the extreme - and a major question mark for his competence. I heard he got a first in PPE - how? http://www.webhostingplay.com/
there's a number of ways we can diversify the economy and even boost it a number of ways without costing alot. firstly revenue neutral tax reform promoting growth of productive resources and away from unproductive resources i.e. lower labour/income and capital/business taxes and higher taxes for non-productive resources such as land and other areas such as green taxes. we can promote longer term strategic industries rather than waste gov't money on admin non-jobs - e.g. put that money for removing fees for engineering courses, investing in infrastructure and transport. bottom line we need to move economy from consumption and towards more sustainable growth - all this can be achieved without increasing the ratio of gov't spending to GDP.