Statement of the gloomy obvious


That sound you've been hearing around Westminster is the sound of expectations being ratcheted downwards. The prime minister told the CBI yesterday that we were "well behind where we need to be", and stressed that Britain's high levels of public and private debt were "proving to be a drag on growth".

"Well, tell us something we didn't know", might be the response of many of you. But the timing is significant: almost exactly a week before the chancellor's Autumn Statement, and Mr Cameron's tone was similar to many conversations I have had in recent days with Whitehall insiders.

The bottom line is that next week's statement is not going to be fun for the government or, I'm afraid, for all of us. You can see why they would want to prepare the ground.

It's not going to be fun for George Osborne because he is going to have to announce substantially higher borrowing numbers through to the end of the parliament, even though the borrowing figures so far this year have been broadly as forecast.

Ed Balls has already made hay with the "more than £100bn" increase in the borrowing forecasts of independent economists since last year's pre-Budget report. As my colleague Hugh Pym points out, the increase in the forecasts since the Budget in March is not as great: the latest (November) consensus forecasts for net government borrowing between 2011-12 and 2014-15 are about £73bn higher than the OBR's forecasts in March.

But that will sound like a lot of extra borrowing to most people, even if it does pale in comparison with the hundreds of billions of extra borrowing that Alistair Darling had to announce, in 2008 and 2009. I'll be surprised if the revision in the official borrowing numbers next week is a lot smaller than the change in the private forecasts, especially given what the OBR is likely to say about the future growth rate (see below).

Will Mr Osborne still meet his two fiscal rules? Economists at Barclays Capital have tried to mimic the likely calculations of the Office for Budget Responsibility. They reckon that the chancellor will be able to say he's meeting his borrowing target, but only just, and only by taking advantage of the fine print.

That chimes with what I have been hearing in Whitehall. What does it mean in practice?

The so-called fiscal mandate says the chancellor has to balance the "current, cyclically adjusted budget" over five years; that's the structural piece of the deficit that is not due to spending on public investment. Back in April, Mr Osborne was going to meet this target a year early, in 2014-15. The new forecasts look set to show the gap closing by 2016-17, and it may only be 50-50 that he manages that.

If he's hitting the target two years late (and only after the next election) the more innocent among you might wonder whether he's missed his five year target after all? But that would be ignoring that crucial fine print.

As I've noted in the past, the rule actually says he has to balance this measure of the budget over a "rolling five year forecast period". The other sound you've been hearing in Whitehall is the sound of rolling forecast periods, rolling forward. So it's goodbye, 2015-16 and hello, 2016-17.

It is not so easy to dispense with the second, debt target, which Mr Osborne imposed on himself, which requires public sector net debt to be falling as a share of GDP at a fixed date of 2015-16. He had leeway here as well: the Budget forecasts showed debt falling from 2013-14 onwards. My sense is that all of that room for manoeuvre has now gone.

But, as Treasury officials have pointed out to me in the past, he only has to show debt falling that one year. It could easily go back up again in 2015-16.

Also, when you think about it, that fixed date is not so very fixed. Does it mean falling, relative to 2014-15, or on course to fall from 2015-16 onwards? Strictly speaking, 2015-16 is not even a date: it is 365 dates.

In short, the debt target is one that the chancellor is unlikely to miss, but both are looking pretty tight.

So much for the chancellor's bad news. What about the bad news for all of us?

The bad news for all of us is that the OBR thinks the economy has got less room for manoeuvre as well. If the OBR has followed the same methods it has used in the past, it will have informed the Treasury that the UK now has less room to grow over the next few years, even though growth in the past year has been so much slower than forecast.

Put it another way: the OBR has looked at the growth we've lost over the past year and decided that we're not going to get it back. It seems also to have decided that our trend rate of growth, at least over the next few years, is lower than it previously thought.

What would this mean in practice? The forecast in the Budget was that the underlying potential of the economy would grow by 2.35% a year between 2010 Q3 and 2013 Q4, and by 2.1% a year after that. If the OBR now thinks our potential output is going to grow more slowly than this, that would be bad news indeed, especially if the OBR turned out to be right.

Remember why a lower trend rate of growth matters: it matters because it would mean that even with a deeply lacklustre recovery, the Bank might be forced to raise interest rates to curb inflation rather sooner than expected. It would also suggest that unemployment will remain higher for longer. Oh yes, and it would mean that Mr Osborne or his successor might have to announce even deeper spending cuts or larger tax rises in the years ahead. As I said, bad news indeed.

Assume the Autumn Statement follows roughly this script - what follows from that?

That's a subject to consider more carefully in the days to come, but we know Mr Osborne and Mr Cameron will see the gloomy figures as more evidence that they were right to take the stance on borrowing that they have.

The implicit suggestion will be that if borrowing is this high with the coalition in charge, imagine what carnage we'd be looking at if Mr Balls or Mr Brown were still in power and what that would have meant for Britain's standing in global markets.

Ed Balls will say precisely the opposite: that the extra borrowing is evidence of the costs of the coalition's budget strategy, not its importance. By stifling growth, he will say, the government has not only tanked the economy, it's made the public finances even worse.

The new figures won't settle this argument, but you can see why Mr Cameron would want us to be well prepared.

Stephanie Flanders Article written by Stephanie Flanders Stephanie Flanders Former economics editor

So it's goodbye from me

After 11 years at the BBC, I'm leaving for a new role in the City.

Read full article


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 16.

    If JC was alive today what car would he drive

    @12, Sorry, who are the LibDems?

    What a depressing choice we have

    The tunnel vision austerity party

    The lost identity party

    The moneys all gone memo party

    At the last election I received a main party candidates pamphlet which appeared to have the main claim of - I will claim my expenses correctly - not much else on it. No wonder we have problems

  • Comment number 15.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • rate this

    Comment number 14.

    The general public may understand the figures it they were quoted per capita. If everybody understood that they are something like £200 per month more in debt, without spending anything, we may see a reaction.

  • rate this

    Comment number 13.

    So 'confidence' thru austerity doesnt work. Theres a surprise. And no room on the debt front to expand. Consumers either cant or wont spend. Private household debt will take 5 to 8 years to ease. & there is inflation but wages fail to track it so inflation is not helping, What else. Oh yes we used to export more to Portugal than China. Hmm. The eurozone implosion to come. Who would have thought it

  • rate this

    Comment number 12.

    All eyes on Mr Choate @ OBR.

    Will he bite the hand that feeds him? The coalition set it up to provide an independent view now that GO's Plan A has failed, the question is will the OBR put the boot in & will Cameron sack GO before he drives us over the cliff ?

    LibDems facing complete annihilation if the UK goes into a deep, rapid recession - when will they pull the plug?

  • rate this

    Comment number 11.


    If Jesus were AAAlive today he would be building a loft conversion in the temple for his father Zechariah

    Is this ok for the ministry of truth moderators?

  • rate this

    Comment number 10.

    Yes we are being and have been softened up for a monumental failure of government economic management AKA Micawber moneynomics. Austerity does not work.

  • rate this

    Comment number 9.

    Even the politicians know that it is the last AAA s

  • rate this

    Comment number 8.

    The figures relating to UK total debt which are being bandied about with such an air of detachedness by our great leader are certainly sobering. Many of us, awake during the debt fuelled orgy, watching all the human pigs/directors/doctors/ex politicians/bankers gorging at the trough whilst their willing minions threw home-owners a bit of corn to scratch for knew how its going to end years ago.

  • rate this

    Comment number 7.


    You will allways find them behind themasses trying to get in front of the curve

  • Comment number 6.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • rate this

    Comment number 5.

    Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of immigrants flow in to work for low wage, pay little or no tax and manage to get welfare. Leaving more and more locals unemployed.

    And people continue to produce babies who will never work to get welfare and housing.

    The system is totally broken.

  • rate this

    Comment number 4.

    Since 99% of the general public have difficulty in focusing on economic matters for more than a few minutes the coalition will present their views and the masses will merely shrug their shoulders, turn on the television and wallow......

  • rate this

    Comment number 3.

    Look after the old or they will take their wealth with them to the grave via the care homes

    The west seems destructively incapable of creating sustainable balanced systems

    Frederick Soddy is probably laughing from the grave

    Well `! he did point out over 80 years ago that cheap energy and an economy based on it would come to an end .

  • rate this

    Comment number 2.


    “Its as obvious as who the father of Jesus was!”

    That’s an easy one…


  • rate this

    Comment number 1.

    The only thing obvious is that Britain NEEDS LOFT CONVERSIONS TWO FEET ABOVE RIDGE HEIGHT as main living areas ,allowing the extended nuclear family aging parents to live on the ground floor and look after grand children.

    Its as obvious as who the father of Jesus was!

    multigenerational housing stock refurbishment providing immediate employment for a host of trades


Page 7 of 7



  • Witley Court in Worcestershire Abandoned mansions

    What happened to England's lost stately homes?

  • Tray of beer being carried10 Things

    Beer is less likely to slosh than coffee, and other nuggets

  • Spoon and buckwheatSoul food

    The grain that tells you a lot about Russia's state of mind

  • Woman readingWeekendish

    The best reads you need to catch up on

  • Salim Rashid SuriThe Singing Sailor

    The young Omani who became a prewar fusion music hit

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.