Cameron rebuked by UK Statistics Authority over debt lies

After the PM falsely claimed the coalition "was paying down Britain’s debts", the UK Statistics Authority points out that the national debt has risen by £300bn.

Last week I reported that Labour's Rachel Reeves had issued a complaint to the UK Statistics Authority after David Cameron falsely stated in a Conservative Party political broadcast that the coalition "was paying down Britain’s debts".

Andrew Dilnot, the chair of the stats authority, has now replied to Reeves, confirming that there was no basis for Cameron's claim. He rightly points out that the national debt has risen from £811.3bn, or 55.3 per cent of GDP, to £1,111.4bn, or 70.7 per cent of GDP, since the coalition entered office. This is hardly surprising. For debt to fall, the government would have to run a budget surplus, something unthinkable at a time of economic stagnation. But that hardly excuses Cameron's myth-making. The PM doesn't need to be told the difference between the deficit and the debt (although Dilnot helpfully reminds him anyway), he just chooses to use the latter as a synoym for the former because it's a more familiar concept to voters.

It's not the first time that the PM has had his knuckles rapped by the nation's number-crunchers. Last year, the Conservatives were forced to correct their claim to have increased real-terms spending on the NHS "in each of the last two years". 

After complaining for years about Gordon Brown's manipulation of economic statistics, the government came to power promising a new regime of transparency. But Cameron's willful distortion of the facts on debt and NHS spending shows he's been unable to hold himself to this standard.

So it's just as well that Dilnot assures us, "I am copying this to the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff at 10 Downing Street".

You can read his reply to Reeves in full below. 

Letter to Rachel Reeves by

David Cameron leaves 10 Downing Street in London, on January 30, 2012. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.