Skip to main content

They are all 'cutting the deficit' now — but do they make any sense?

There is nothing more annoying than hearing politicians of all parties telling us 'we must cut the deficit'.  It is annoying because they never explain what they mean by it, let alone how they would do it.  It should come with a health warning, or some kind of caveat that tells you they are talking nonsense. There is no 'must' about cutting he deficit.  It is not in itself a 'must'. It is only a 'must' in the right economic context. Mr Osborne says he has cut the deficit by a third. Mr Cameron often repeats this. What they mean by cutting the deficit varies depending on what message they really want to get across.

Are they talking about the current account deficit, or are they talking about the underlying, or structural deficit? They don't tell you. They simply say 'deficit'. By doing so they give the impression that all kinds of deficit are equally problematic. They are not. You might think the deficit is 'the deficit'. Some politicians are fond of referring to household budgets for an analogy.  You can't go on spending beyond your means.  Well, no, you can't. But we often do. We often spend what we expect to pay later. We borrow. Now there are different kinds of borrowing.  For example, borrowing to pay of existing debts isn't 'good' borrowing. Borrowing to buy a car to use for work is probably, depending on the circumstances, an example of 'good' borrowing. Without the car you would have no income. So you might 'run a deficit' for a while, covered by borrowing. That kind of deficit isn't 'bad'.

We might regard the economy in the same way. The government might choose to run a deficit covered by borrowing in order to 'grow the economy'.

 In the calendar year 2007, the Labour government borrowed £37.7bn, of which £28.3bn was invested in big projects (the balance of £9.4bn represents the current budget deficit).  Last year the Coalition borrowed £91.5bn, with just £23.7bn invested (budget deficit was £67.8 bn).  So not all the deficit is 'bad'.

Let's look at this another way with another set of interesting statistics.  Let's look at debt as % of GDP.  In 1997 debt was 40% of GDP. At the start of the recession in 2007/8 debt had fallen to 36.4% of GDP. Yet this was despite increased government spending. Government spending increased enormously under Labour. The Tories are always telling us, so it must be right. So how was this achieved? The answer of course is by growth and increasing revenue.  Revenue can be key to cutting the deficit but politicians don't like going there because it is to do with taxes!

Let's also put it into another perspective. Debt as a percentage of GDP was much higher in the 1950s when according to Harold MacMillan, we had 'never had it so good'. Even as he said this, UK national debt was over 200% of GDP!  You might say, ah yes but that was because of the war. Indeed, no doubt it was, but the same argument can be applied now in relation to debt at 60% of GDP - 'ah yes , that is because of the financial crash'.  Indeed it is.

So, when we hear politicians talking about cutting deficits we need to be sure what deficit they are talking about, what they would do to cut it, and three whether what they propose makes any real sense. About that we can make no judgements because we have no idea what they would do to 'cut the deficit'. When they say 'we will cut the deficit' they are being disengenuous and frankly talking a load of bollocks.


Comments

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

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As