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.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'.

Please note: Previously subscribers used a 'WebID' to log into the website. Your subscriber number is not the same as the WebID. Please ensure you use the subscriber number when you link your subscription.

Coffee House

How Osborne’s ‘deficit halved’ claim backfired  

3 January 2015

9:25 AM

3 January 2015

9:25 AM

So – how did it go? Yesterday, Tory HQ yesterday issued a poster with the misleading claim that the deficit had been ‘halved’ where in fact the reduction has been closer to a third (see below). In election campaigns, a ‘porkie*’ is introduced in stages. It debuts when dropped into a speech or article. If no one complains, it gets used again with a bit more boldness. And if there’s still no pushback, it’ll be used bigger – say, on a poster. As it was with Labour’s £35bn Tory cuts porkie, so it is with Osborne’s ‘halved the deficit’ porkie.

But judging by today’s newspapers, the ‘poster’ stage of this porkie seems to have gone rather badly.

“Fib! Fury over Tory poster claim that party has ‘halved the deficit’” says the Daily Mail. Its deputy editor, Tony Gallagher, has warned HM Treasury that this is how his newspaper will treat spin – from any party…

Screen Shot 2015-01-04 at 19.03.54

Tories accused of lying in campaign poster that claims deficit has halvedsays the Independent.

“David Cameron is to put the Union Jack and questionable claims about the deficit at the heart of the Tory election campaignsays The Times

[Alt-Text]


Cameron launches election campaign with controversial deficit claimsays the Guardian, again focusing on the dodgy nature of ‘halving’ claim.

And here’s the FT‘s intro…

“David Cameron and George Osborne have launched the Conservative general election campaign with a contentious claim that they have succeeded in halving the deficit…”

The FT knows a thing or two about using clear language for readers interested in finance. As regular readers know, when it writes about ‘the deficit’ it refers to cash, rather than a GDP ratio. If it refers to a GDP ratio, it says so.

And yesterday, Radio 4’s World at One led on the porkie as well.

So a tiny, pointless trick eclipsed Osborne’s genuine achievements: the jobs miracle, the business creation (helped by his corporation tax cuts) and more. Even the Daily Mail, hardly a Miliband cheerleader, zeroed in on the ‘fib’ – and this is what journalists do when they encounter a fib. They tend to challenge and confront it, and the row about the fib ends up becoming the story.

So Osborne’s claim to have ‘halved the deficit’ without referring to GDP is not just dishonest, it’s bad politics. Very bad politics.

David Cameron has a long line of genuine, hard-won achievements that he can campaign on. George Osborne flunked his deficit reduction programme (below) which I accept is embarrassing for him, but if he tries to spin his way out of this embarrassment he just makes it far worse. Far better focus on the real things that he got right.

I hope the Tories learn lessons from this. Credibility is important in politics, and the campaign has a very long way to go.

* A porkie is an election statement which is misleading, but carries with it a long and technical explanation intended to stop anyone questioning it. In this case, the claim is explained by the idea that the word ‘deficit’ is defined as a ratio of PSNB/GDP and this ratio (which economists find more useful than straight cash) has halved over the five years.

And here’s Osborne’s original deficit plan, vs outcome. The deficit is forecast to be £91.3bn in 2014-15, almost three times the £37bn that he originally said it would be by now. In those days, he was mocking Labour for its poverty of ambition in merely halving the deficit.

Screen Shot 2015-01-03 at 09.23.43

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.


Show comments
Close