X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

Coffee House

IFS warns Osborne: don’t cook the books, like Brown

26 November 2012

12:19 PM

26 November 2012

12:19 PM

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has today published its attempt to predict what the OBR forecasts will show when they’re released as George Osborne sits down after delivering his Autumn Statement next week. They put forward two possible scenarios: a ‘pessimistic’ one where the economy’s recent weakness is largely permanent, and an ‘optimistic’ one where it is largely temporary. In both scenarios, they show Osborne missing his ‘supplementary target’: to have the debt-to-GDP ratio falling by 2015-16. But these forecasts exclude the effect of transferring of the interest on the Bank of England’s Quantitative Easing purchases to the Treasury. As I reported on Friday, that effect might be enough to allow Osborne to meet his debt target even despite the weakness in the economy and the deterioration in the public finances. But the IFS cautions that Osborne would be wrong to claim success if that’s the case:

‘it would be disingenuous for the Chancellor to claim that he was still on course to meet his supplementary target purely as a result of such a change. Any assessment of whether the Chancellor remains on course to meet his supplementary target should use the same measure of debt as was in place at the time he committed himself to this rule; not doing so – and thus being seen to move the goalposts – could risk undermining the credibility of any commitments he makes to fiscal discipline.’

And to underline just how disingenuous it would be, the IFS likens such trickery to the kind used by Gordon Brown during his chancellorship:

‘Similar arguments were made when, soon after the general election of 2005, the then Chancellor Gordon Brown revised his assessment about when the then current economic cycle began (from 1999–2000 to 1997–98), which happened to make his ‘golden rule’ easier to meet just at the moment when data from the ONS first suggested that the rule was on course to be breached.’

The IFS urges Osborne not to follow the example of his predecessor-but-one, but instead to come clean. If, as is very likely, the OBR judges that he would be missing his debt target without the QE transfer, Osborne should either announce more spending cuts and tax rises in order to meet it, or admit defeat and drop the target. The IFS says meeting the target would take an extra £16 billion of savings on its optimistic forecast, and £27 billion on its pessimistic one. But they recommend dropping the target, arguing that:

‘Ensuring debt falls between two fixed dates does not ensure long-run sustainability, since it does not prevent the government from pursuing unsustainable fiscal policies before or after those dates. Furthermore, seeking to remain on course to meet this target could require the government to announce inappropriately contractionary fiscal policies. There will be periods when it would be better to allow debt to rise than to ensure (or try to ensure) that it falls.’

[Alt-Text]


They say Osborne ‘would likely be best advised to abandon the rule and consult on replacing it with something that better ensures long-run sustainability.’ But considering that it was Osborne who introduced the rule in the first place — back in 2010 — it’ll be profoundly embarrassing for him to first admit that he’s breaking it, and then say ‘Well, it was a silly rule anyway. Oh and here’s a new rule. I’ll meet this one, honest.’

But even more worrying for Osborne will be that the IFS’s pessimistic scenario shows him missing his main fiscal rule: to eliminate the current budget’s structural deficit within five years (ie. by 2017-18 in these forecasts). Even the optimistic scenario has him only just managing it, with a surplus of just 0.6 per cent of GDP in 2017-18.

The IFS reckons that the pessimistic scenario would require Osborne to find an extra £23 billion in spending cuts and tax rises, although he would be able to delay them until after the election, just as he did with the extra tightening he announced in last year’s Autumn Statement.

UPDATE: While welcoming the appointment of Mark Carney as Bank of England Governor, Ed Balls put the IFS’s warning to George Osborne and asked him to promise not to include the QE-transfer effect. Osborne didn’t make that promise.

Give something clever this Christmas – a year’s subscription to The Spectator for just £75. And we’ll give you a free bottle of champagne. Click here.


Show comments
Close