Osborne prepares to admit defeat on debt reduction
The Chancellor will abandon his debt rule to prevent even deeper cuts.
By George Eaton Published 12 September 2012 9:56
In his "emergency Budget" in June 2010, Osborne declared that "unless we deal with our debts there will be no growth". But as all Keynesians know, the reverse is true. Unless you stimulate growth, you can't deal with your debts. According to the latest independent forecasts, Osborne will be forced to borrow £174.9bn more than originally planned from 2012-16, a figure that is only likely to rise as growth remains anaemic or non-existent.
Indeed, so bad is the fiscal situation, that, as today's Times reports (£), Osborne is preparing to announce the abandonment of his golden debt rule in the Autumn Statement on 5 December. The rule, which forms the second part of his "fiscal mandate" (the first relates to the structural deficit, which the Chancellor aims to eliminate over a rolling five-year period), is designed to "ensure that debt is falling as a share of GDP by 2015-16". Based on the most recent set of forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility, published at the time of the Budget, debt will decline from 76.3 per cent in 2014-15 before dropping to 76 per cent in 2015-16. But since then, the economy has fallen back into recession, with borrowing already up by more than a quarter on last year. As a result, independent forecasters now say that Osborne will miss his target. The IMF, for instance, has forecast that debt will rise from 78.8 per cent of GDP in 2014-15 to 79.9 per cent in 2015-16.
In response, the Chancellor could, of course, announce billions more in tax rises and spending cuts. But that would only further reduce growth, meaning that he might miss his target anyway, and would hardly endear him to voters already bruised by austerity. Thus, as the Times reports, Osborne, with David Cameron's agreement, "is ready to take a political hit on missing the target rather than face the "nightmare" of further cuts."
For the Chancellor, the consequences could be grim. The abandonment of the debt rule would dismay his party's fiscal conservatives, and could trigger the loss of the UK's AAA credit rating, the metric by which he has set such stock. But it could also offer Osborne one final chance to redeem himself. Once he accepts that debt reduction should not be prioritised over growth, the menu of policy options expands accordingly. Indeed, a well-sourced leader (£) in yesterday's Times suggested that the Chancellor was even considering a small stimulus. And why not? With the UK able to borrow at the lowest interest rates for 300 years, it is only Osborne's political pride that has prevented a change of course thus far. Even the IMF has said that a reduced pace of deficit reduction would not lead to a rise in UK bond yields. Freed from his fiscal straitjacket, Osborne would finally be liberated to pursue a policy that works.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists




















13 comments
Why doesn't he just resign?
Better yet, why not publically admit that the debt can never be repaid. Therefore, we'll write it off and start over? If Osborne did this, millions would probably say, wow. A poltiician that's actually telling the truth. This would also mean a huge drop in Tory campaign donations. And possibly lots of politicians not getting re-elected. Is that worse than what's happening now?
George
"Unless you stimulate growth, you can't deal with your debts"
Labour borrowed £600Bn including £350Bn before 2008 when the economy was over heating. Did Labour deal with its debts?
BTW
Average performance by the coalition:
- private sector employment is up
- exports out side EU at record high
- trade deficit is down
Excellent performance by the coalition:
- public sector employment is down
- state has shrunk and is shrinking
- unions are hacked off and protecting "pay ahead of jobs" (self above country).
- UK industry is growing
- exam grades are being brought under control (no give a way for free qualification anymore)
If you went back to school now George may be you would not get those grades? e.g. economics. Dont tell me you did history like economic genious Gordon?
Trade deficit down? Didn't we have a record 15 year deficit last month? The latest trade deficit came in at £3 Billion Inastew.
Don't forget, Osborne is on course to borrow £600 Billion by 2015, and the figures for 2016-17 are eyewatering.
You will find part-time employment in records figure, then again if you have a part time chancellor, it was bound to happen.
BTW, did you see Gordon Brown being cheered at the Paralympics?
£3Bn? The BBC news must be wrong then because they said £1.5BN. Are you harking back to the days of Labour spin double counting everything?
£600Bn is an obscene amount of borrowing. The difference is that Labour spent it by choice to win votes and retain power for a small elite leaving a massive structural deficit in addition to a debt mountain. You forgot to mention public sector employment has been reduced (bring it on) - something Labour is incapable of doing given it has sold its sole to the state sector unions.
BTW, did you see David Cameron being cheered? The difference is they were cheering Gordon for not being PM!!! I remember what people thought of Gordon, your hero economic genious with a history degree and no relevant work experience, when he was in control.
Wasnt Hitler an economic genious too? He borrowed so much German had to go to war to avoid their structural deficit destroying thier economy. Do you think Ed Balls looks good in that fetching SS uniform? The Jewish Chronicle did not think so.
I see equating Gordon Brown to Hitler, what a poor way to win an argument Inastew, it just goes to show you will sink into the gutter to get a reaction.
I bet the Jewish Chronicle weren't impressed with Aidan Burley either, or Prince Harry.
What did happen to the much vaunted Plan A?
I hope George has remembered the farmers and how they are getting less for their products from the multinational supermarkets than it cost's to make.
Seem's they are able to run on negative equity.
I wonder if his farm is running under the same financial prudence?
There are so many economic illiterates who post on here, I don't know why they bother.
Lay of Indu Pendent, she/he has a great amount of comedy value.
Neither does an insult carry as much weight as an eloquently argued comment. If you have an opposing view, explain it. Make this a constructive forum where opinions are shared and ideas debated.
I suppose this has nothing to do with the £31 billion in interest from the gilts QE was used to buy back that's sitting in theBank of England, has it, that he's been keeping very quiet about? How can he still be borrowing when we've got money to spend?
The chancellor has learned that, unless you cut back the state, enterprise will remain stifled and you can't reduce the nation's debts.
If that's what the chancellor has learned, then it is no wonder he is so incompetent. History has shown time and time again that enterprise works best with the support and stimulus of a a large state (e.g. FDR and the growth in the US economy in the lead-up and during WWII), whilst a small state is often a path to economic oblivion, especially when that economy is already in recession (e.g. Hoover and the great depression). And the very notion that enterprise and the state are mutually exclusive clearly relies on the ignorance of readers in both the fields of history and economics in order to be accepted as fact.