Skip to main content

Economical with the truth on cutting the deficit.

It is unworthy of coalition ministers to repeat the absurd claim that the government has cut the deficit by a quarter. I hear it repeatedly. It is untrue, or in as much as it has any truth it is an unethical manipulation of statistics; unethical because of the consequences of misrepresenting the financial situation to the public. So where does the claim come from and does it stack up?

The claim comes from a comparison of Public Sector Net Borrowing (PSNB). It is convenient to choose the periods of comparison, for example a low year with the  high year. This is an old statistical trick. The problem of doing this is that the years chosen might contain elements that were exceptional and not typical of the underlying trend or position. This is why it is better to compare longer periods to iron out anomalies, exceptional one off items of expenditure or revenue. Furthermore, running deficits in a given year or period is not necessarily bad. Cutting PSNB is not in itself 'good'.

And this is why the claim made by government ministers is disingenuous. Statistics from the ONS show that for the period April to September 2012, the public sector net borrowing, excluding the temporary effects of financial interventions (PSNB ex), was £37.1 billion, which was £25.4 billion lower than in the same period of the previous year, when PSNB ex was £62.4 billion. It all looks good until you consider exceptional elements, or what factors contributed to the fall.


The April 2012 the net borrowing figures included two one-off transactions. The first was a £28 billion transfer of the Royal Mail Pension Plan and the second was a £2.3 billion transaction to the Government from the closure of the Special Liquidity Scheme.

When the effect of these two one-off transactions is removed, then PSNB in the period April to September 2012 would be £67.4 billion, which would be £4.9 billion higher than in April to September 2011. A decreasing deficit turns into one that has increased.

A better indication of the financial situation would be to consider debt as percentage of GDP, as this would be a measure of its sustainability. By this measure debt has been increasing. Public sector net debt was £1,065.4 billion at the end of September 2012, equivalent to 67.9 per
cent of gross domestic product (GDP).

Running deficits is not in itself an indication of bad financial management. It depends on what underlies the budget deficit. Running deficits resulting from investment, building infrastructure, getting people back to work and increasing productivity and high street sales, can be strategically sensible if it leads to increased revenue in later years that then cuts the deficit.

Bad deficits are of the opposite kind. They result from falling revenue against a background of increased spending on unemployment and welfare, the result of recession. This leads to a bad cycle of cutting spending further which simply aggravates the problem. This I believe is the situation Osborne has got us into.

Cutting budget deficit should not be the aim in the short to medium term. The target should be policies that stimulate growth and increased tax revenue. Simply cutting the deficit is bad strategy.

Postscript

An update on PSNB: For the period April 2012 to January 2013, public sector net borrowing (excluding the capital payment recorded as part of the Royal Mail Pension Plan transfer in April 2012) was £93.8 billion; this is £1.5 billion higher net borrowing than in the same period the previous year, when net borrowing was £92.3 billion.

Public sector net debt was £1,162.8 billion at the end of January 2013, equivalent to 73.8% of gross domestic product (GDP).

The Director General of the British Chambers of Commerce has today called on the government to act speedily with measures to stimulate growth.

“The Chancellor should seize the opportunity in next month's Budget to be radical, and introduce measures that create an environment of enterprise, stimulate export growth, kick-start infrastructure projects and create a structure of business finance which supports growing companies. Above all, these measures should create confidence. Our own research shows that firms across Britain believe they can drive growth this year, but they can’t do it alone. The government must be bold and do all it can to boost confidence so that businesses can create jobs, wealth and ultimately long-term growth.”

Comments

  1. Thank you for an simple clear explanation to a finance ostrich

    ReplyDelete

Post a comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Keir Starmer has a lot to offer

The Labour Party is in the process of making a decision that will decide whether it can recover from the defeat in 2019 General Election.  All the candidates have much to offer and are making their case well. No doubt for some the decision will be difficult.  Others may well have made up their minds on the simple binary of Left-wing-Right-wing. The choice should be whoever is best placed to pull the party together.  Someone who can form a front bench of all talents and across the spectrum in the party. That is what Harold Wilson did in the 1960s.  His government included Roy Jenkins on the right and Barbar Castle on the left; it included Crossman and Crossland, and Tony Benn with Jim Callaghan.  It presented a formidable team. Keir Starmer brings to the top table a formidable career outside politics, having been a human rights lawyer and then Director of Public Prosecutions.   He is a man of integrity and commitment who believes in a fairer society where opportunities are more

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't