It was reported last Friday that the Tories say that they would spend one per cent of GDP less than Labour by 2015-16. Ken Clarke has apparently upped the ante a bit and promised to to spend one-and-a-half per cent less.
Well whoopie do.
I've no reason to assume that yer average Daily Mirror reader is stupider than anybody else, but I doubt whether maths is their strong point. The article insists that this spending cut is equivalent to half of the education budget. If one-and-a-half per cent of GDP = £20 billion = half the education budget, then the education budget must be £40 billion. According to HM Treasury's Public Sector Finances Databank, it's £87 billion.
But given that the government plans to spend £671.4 billion this year, are Daily Mirror readers happy with the fact that only £40 billion of that goes on education? Do they not wonder where the rest goes? Or all they all public sector workers, like Grauniad readers?
The whole thing then descends into parody from there on in. Especially Liam Byrne saying that "It would mean we would have to take £20billion out of public services by 2014. That would do irreparable damage to public services or to taxpayers." Possibly the most injudicious "or" of the week.
Wednesday 17 March 2010
More one per cent fun
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Only 1% (or one and a half)?
I'd like to see a much LARGER cut in what the Government spends -- Ooops, sorry, 'invests' -- how about limiting the Government to 25% of GDP. Now that's something I'd vote for.
Oh and speaking of 'investments'...
After 13 years of so called investments does anyone know how much profit we've made yet? Anyone?
JP, the Tories intend, over the longer term to spend 1% to 1.5% of GDP less than Labour, i.e. both are looking at about 40%-plus. Wimp that I am, 30% seems about right to me.
As to your second question ... good question. Anyone?
Nice post.
I could get £20bn together very quickly. Ditch International Development, Culture Media and Sport, GLA Transport Grants*, DBERR and most of DEFRA and you're only a little short.
* London Transport is cheaper than out here in the sticks which is nuts.
JT, the last time I looked, the total budget for that bunch of timewasters was rather more than £20 billion. Would you like to keep the change?
Another train of thought...
Shouldn't we perhaps be thinking (as a nation) about setting strict limits on Government spending? Why should reducing spending as some arbitrary proportion of GDP be merely an aspiration?
Much better, I would have thought, to set an absolute legal maximum percentage of GDP available to the Government of the day -- yeah I know, getting them (any of them) to agree to this would be nigh on impossible but it seems obvious we should try.
Future spending on 'new services' would then have to come from the existing pot or the Government would have to promote conditions that increased total GDP... in other words earn it.
And before anyone points out that Governments often have to increase spending in times of reducing GDP: Just because its a tradition it doesn't follow we always have to do this. Exemptions could also be written into law to cover such eventualities. But maybe though, if the Government knew in advance that the taxpayer's credit card wasn't going to be available then perhaps they'll be motivated to manage the economy better?
Its a thought... and probably not a novel one but surely we need to be thinking seriously of stopping our Governments taking ever more of our income?
The Mirror article is nonsense. It starts by saying
"The Shadow Business Secretary said he backed a European Union plan to get national debt down to 3% of the UK's income by 2014."
Of course, it's "deficit" not "debt". Even apart from that, the whole thing is based on Labour's heroic growth assumptions (basically they are assuming 3% growth for most of the next four years). Without those assumptions, getting it down to 3% would be a much bigger cut than £20 billion.
Post a Comment