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 balan…

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 widel…

No evidence for vaccine link with autism

Public health bodies are worried that an alarming drop in childhood vaccinations is leading to a resurgence of diseases in childhood that we had all but eradicated.  Misinformation and scare stories about the harmful effects of vaccines abound on the internet and in social media.  Where they are based on 'science', it is highly selective, and often reliance is placed on falsehoods. 
Conspiracy theories also abound - cover-ups, deception, lies. As a result, too many parents are shunning vaccinations for their children.  So, what does the published, peer-reviewed literature tell us about vaccincations? Are they safe and effective, or are there long term harmful effects? 
A new report now provides some of the answers.

New evidence published in the Cochrane Library today finds MMR, MMRV, and MMR+V vaccines are effective and that they are not associated with increased risk of autism.

Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (also known as chickenpox) are infectious diseases caused by …