Why we should hope the UK loses its AAA rating
It would expose the myth that the market punishes higher borrowing.
By George Eaton Published 06 August 2012 9:12
As a drowning man clings to a life raft, so George Osborne clings to the UK's AAA credit rating as proof of his "credibility". When Standard & Poor's reaffirmed the UK's top rating last month, Osborne declared: "this is a reminder that despite the economic problems we face, the world has confidence that we are dealing with them".
But with the Chancellor now likely to break his golden debt rule, it's possible and even probable that at least one agency (Moody's and Fitch currently have the UK on "negative outlook") will remove our AAA rating in the near future. If Osborne is to be believed, this would be a disastrous blow to our economic credibility. But, as so often with the Chancellor, there's no evidence for this claim. The US, for instance, has seen no rise in its borrowing costs since losing its AAA rating a year ago today, indeed, its rates have fallen. All the evidence we have suggests that the market is prepared to lend to countries that can borrow in their own currencies, such as the US, the UK and Japan, and that enjoy the benefits of an independent monetary policy, regardless of their credit ratings or their debt levels (Japan's national debt is 211 per cent of GDP, while ours is 66 per cent, a reminder that we were never on the "brink of bankruptcy").
Now, as PoliticsHome points out, Danny Alexander has hinted that he knows as much. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury told the BBC:
The credit rating is not the be-all and end-all.
What matters is have we got the right policy mix for the country to get people back into work, to support economic growth, to deal with the huge problems in our public finances and the credit agencies reflect on those things and the ratings they give are a reflection of the credibility of that mix.
In fact, one could go further than Alexander and argue that the loss of our AAA rating would be a positive development. It would explode the myth that borrowing for growth (in the form of tax cuts and higher public spending) would lead to a bond market revolt and would strengthen the cause of those who argue that we shouldn't allow the agencies that rated Lehman Brothers as "safe", days before it filed for bankruptcy, to dictate our economic policy. It would also, of course, be a lethal blow to the political credibility of the current occupant of the Treasury. Osborne's deficit reduction plan was rooted in the need to preserve our AAA rating. If he fails in this task, why should voters trust him to do anything else?
Yet the loss of our AAA rating would finally liberate Osborne to pursue a plan that actually works. Once the belief that the market holds a veto on our borrowing levels is exposed as a myth, the Chancellor could finally stimulate growth through tax cuts and higher public spending. A growing economy could revive his reputation and that of his party. The path to redemption is open to Osborne. Unfortunately for the Tories, there is almost no chance of him taking it.
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




















17 comments
66%? It is now 85% and it is going skyhigh.
Labour supporters think Keynes could push it to 250% in 1946, so why not we. But from who do you want to borrow all that money? China, the EU, Australia, Norway or even the U.S.?
States can not go bankrupt. They just stop paying intrest. But these things only happen when there is war I thought. But you will weaken the state with these Gordon Brown sized deficits. Only the Tories will benefit. You will see.
66%? It is now 85% and it is going skyhigh.
Labour supporters think Keynes could push it to 250% in 1946, so why not we. But from who do you want to borrow all that money? China, the EU, Australia, Norway or even the U.S.?
States can not go bankrupt. They just stop paying intrest. But these things only happen when there is war I thought. But you will weaken the state with these Gordon Brown sized deficits. Only the Tories will benefit. You will see.
"Japan's national debt is 211 per cent of GDP, while ours is 66 per cent, a reminder that we were never on the "brink of bankruptcy"
Since going on a massive expansion of public debt in the early 1990s, Japan has averaged less than 1% GDP growth per year. That's what large debt burdens do to economies - they kill growth for the long term.
Is this what Eaton wants the Labour party to do to us in pursuit of short term growth? Have they not done enough damage already?
No one in Labour is pursuing short term growth. Considering we are suffering the worst double dip recession in 50 years, is that a measure of success then?
I take it you have been ignoring the awful government borrowing figures for the last six months, revenues down, welfare spending going through the roof.
"tax cuts and higher public spending" borrow and squander...
No, having 1.65 million claiming JSA and 2.65 million out of work is "borrow and squander". Using the same money to build and expand the schools we'll need in a few years time is sensible investment. Repairing rather than patching up our pot0holed roads is sensible investment. Kick-starting the economy is sensible investment. But Osborne doesn't have the guts to do it.
Labour entered office with 4 million claiming one kind of state benefit or another. Labour left office with that same figure. Labour pumped billions into education only to see standards fall and which government was in office then these potholes started to appear? We are all for sensible investment but Labour doesn't do sensible. "Kick-starting the economy is sensible investment. But Osborne doesn't have the 'money' to do it". Because Labour squandered the lot... Labour spent £1.3 Trillion in it's last spending spree and the economy nosedived: so why would it be different next time around lets remember our billions were wasted by Labour on grandiose schemes with Industry very seldom ever getting a look in.
Most of the claimed problems of the last Labour government derive from two areas that are frequently misrepresented by Conservative commentators.
Firstly, in most matters of social policy they were happy to continue on a trajectory established by the previous Conservative governments, such as Education, the NHS etc. Secondly, on the economy, they reduced the public debt up until 2007/8. It is interesting to note that the £1.3 trillion that is always thrown at them by Conservatives is equal to the amount that had to be used to prop up the failed financial system. Why can they not bring themselves to remind us of that important qualifying fact? The New Labour choice for neoliberalism was their downfall.
Osborne had the guts to run one of the biggest deficits in Europe. But for Labour's deficit deniers, you can never spend enough.
You call it guts if you like. The coalition's entire policy agenda has been centred around attempting to reduce the deficit. They've been almost entirely unsuccessful so far. This is not guts but incompetence.
By contrast, Labour made the decision in 2008 to protect banks from a global financial crisis. This was not deficit denial but an deliberate decision; I'm glad they did this because it' would have been my savings at risk had the UK banks starting collapsing.
Cutting the deficit by 25% is "almost entirely unsuccessful" by what logic?
And labour's rescue of the banks had little to do with or impact on the deficit. You don't really know what you are talking about do you?
Hi Mr Danger,
Thanks for your questions. Firstly, the logic for my assertion: the coalition's plan on entering government was to eliminate the deficit within four years, which became five, then seven, then eight as the economy refused to improve. Most recently, Cameron has been hinting it might take ten years. Had the economy performed in the way the coalition predicted, the deficit would have been cut by far more than 25%, and the economy would be growing rather than back in recession.
Secondly, ONS figures for Net Borrowing (£m): 31,801 (2006); 34,893 (2007); 69,231 (2008); 152,706 (2009); 145,998 (2010); 124,423 (2011). The figures for 2006 are broadly typical of those from every year between 2002-2007; during these years Labour ran a similar deficit to that of the Major government in 1991-1996. Between 1998-2001 the New Labour government ran a surplus. In other words, high levels of net borrowing occurred only since 2008, the time of the global financial crisis and ensuing global recession.
You were supposed to explain how cutting the deficit 25%, in a far worse economic environment than anyone anticipated, is "almost entirely unsuccessful". You did not.
I also find your deficit history deliberately dishonest. You try to argue that Labour is not the party of deficits. Yet you compare the Major years (1991-96), which include a recession, with 2002-2007, the boom years under Labour when despite rapidly increasing tax revenues, Labour increased spending so fast that deficits actually grew. By the time the crisis arrived the UK had been perfectly set up for a deficit explosion, which is precisely what happened.
"In other words, high levels of net borrowing occurred only since 2008, the time of the global financial crisis and ensuing global recession"
I see so external events are a good excuse, but only when Labour is in power?
Clearly Labour supporters are still stuck in denial.
Come on Mr Danger, don't forget Ken Clarke levied VAT on Gas and Electricity at a whopping 17.5%. What do you want to talk about Tory tax rises?
What did happen to the £350 Billion of North Sea Oil revenues circa 1979 to 1997?
Between 1980 and 1985 North Sea Oil accounted for 15% of total government revenues.
The Tories borrowed £264 billion over 17 years of government, not exactly something to be proud of.
1) In his 2010 Emergency Budget, Osborne said, "the formal mandate we set is that the structural current deficit should be in balance in the final year of the five-year forecast period, which is 2015-16". A 25% reduction after two years means he is not on track. Which means he has not been successful under his own measure.
2) You claimed that "labour's rescue of the banks had little to do with or impact on the deficit." The figures that I cited show that the level of public sector borrowing were significantly higher after 2008 than they had been at any time in history. While you might consider levels of borrowing during 2002-7 to have been excessive, they were not historically unprecedented.
But let me move away from minutia and make my main point. I can accept that people may hold different views on levels of government spending and levels of borrowing. What I disagree with is the way that Osborne trivialises policy decisions made under the previous government as being accidental. His implication is that the "correct" policy is obvious, easy to implement and guaranteed to succeed. I do not believe this is the case: governing is a good deal more complicated that being born with a gut feeling about what will work. You and he may disagree with Brown's tax and spending plans pre-2008, and you/he may disagree with Darling's decision to intervene to save the banks. But you shouldn't pretend that these weren't deliberate decisions taken for considered reasons. A Tory government pursuing a different direction would have been held accountable if they'd failed to improve the quality of public services, and would almost certainly have been castigated if they'd refused to rescue the banks.
Gareth,
Labour inherited a NHS waiting list of 1,000,000 when it came to power in 1997. The National Debt in 1997 stood at over £400 Billion.
Mr Danger is proud of the legacy, he doesn't want to talk about the money spent on doctors, nurses and the police under Labour.
Spiralling debt, a shrinking economy and massive unemployment for starters. You're all out of excuses I'm afraid. Plan A is a lemon. And we can't make lemonade.