Borrowing is much higher than it should be. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Government borrowing: the numbers don’t add up

There is less scope in the years ahead for our current levels of borrowing to be eliminated by further economic growth. 

Friday’s public spending figures brought some small comfort to the Chancellor. In September, borrowing for the year was 10 per cent higher than the previous year; the gap has now narrowed to 6 per cent. But that is very small comfort indeed when borrowing was supposed to fall by around 12 per cent this year.

The initial signs looked good: GDP growth for 2014 is expected to come in at around 3 per cent, higher than the OBR forecast back in March. But poor wage growth has continued to hold tax receipts down. The result is that borrowing is much higher than it should be. 

At the same time, economic forecasters are putting the higher than expected growth down to a faster recovery rather than an improvement in the underlying health of the economy. This means that there is less scope in the years ahead for our current levels of borrowing to be eliminated by further economic growth. 

This has serious consequences for fiscal targets in the next parliament. The Conservatives have said that if they win the next election, they would seek to generate an overall surplus by 2018-19. 

On the plans set out back in March, that looked feasible. With £38bn of cuts to government departments after 2015-16, the OBR forecast that by 2018-19, the next government would have eliminated borrowing and would in fact be running a surplus of just over £1 billion. 

The SMF’s calculations, based on the latest economic forecasts, shows that this is no longer likely to be the case. Instead, even with the £38bn of cuts, borrowing will still be at around £14bn. To hit their targets, the Conservatives would have to bring the total cuts after 2015-16 to £52bn.

Since 2010, the deadline for completing the deficit reduction programme has had to be repeatedly postponed. In large part, thisis because the state of the economy has disappointed. In the next parliament, as with this one, the performance of the economy will make the difference between success and failure in meeting any of the main political parties’ fiscal targets. If, for example, it were possible to repeat the sustainable growth era of the early 2000s, the need for further cuts after 2015-16 would disappear. By contrast, if we see a repeat of poor underlying productivity growth seen in recent years, the size of the cuts required could balloon.

The next government must have an ambitious plan to boost long-term growth, and repairing the UK economy must be seen and treated as an integral part of any public spending strategy. This means that areas of spending that have growth enhancing-benefits must be prioritised.

The spending cuts programme was expected to be over in time for the 2015 general election. Instead, the next incoming government will have an even bigger challenge on its hands than in 2010: making further fierce cuts to spending when the easiest savings have already been made.

Nida Broughton is Chief Economist at the Social Market Foundation 

Nida Broughton is Senior Economist at the Social Market Foundation.

Photo: ASA
Show Hide image

Harmful gender stereotypes in ads have real impact – so we're challenging them

The ASA must make sure future generations don't recoil at our commercials.

July’s been quite the month for gender in the news. From Jodie Whittaker’s casting in Doctor Who, to trains “so simple even women can drive them”, to how much the Beeb pays its female talent, gender issues have dominated. 

You might think it was an appropriate time for the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) to launch our own contribution to the debate, Depictions, Perceptions and Harm: a report on gender stereotypes in advertising, the result of more than a year’s careful scrutiny of the evidence base.

Our report makes the case that, while most ads (and the businesses behind them) are getting it right when it comes to avoiding damaging gender stereotypes, the evidence suggests that some could do with reigning it in a little. Specifically, it argues that some ads can contribute to real world harms in the way they portray gender roles and characteristics.

We’re not talking here about ads that show a woman doing the cleaning or a man the DIY. It would be most odd if advertisers couldn’t depict a woman doing the family shop or a man mowing the lawn. Ads cannot be divorced from reality.

What we’re talking about is ads that go significantly further by, for example, suggesting through their content and context that it’s a mum’s sole duty to tidy up after her family, who’ve just trashed the house. Or that an activity or career is inappropriate for a girl because it’s the preserve of men. Or that boys are not “proper” boys if they’re not strong and stoical. Or that men are hopeless at simple parental or household tasks because they’re, well...men.

Advertising is only a small contributor to gender stereotyping, but a contributor it is. And there’s ever greater recognition of the harms that can result from gender stereotyping. Put simply, gender stereotypes can lead us to have a narrower sense of ourselves – how we can behave, who we can be, the opportunities we can take, the decisions we can make. And they can lead other people to have a narrower sense of us too. 

That can affect individuals, whatever their gender. It can affect the economy: we have a shortage of engineers in this country, in part, says the UK’s National Academy of Engineering, because many women don’t see it as a career for them. And it can affect our society as a whole.

Many businesses get this already. A few weeks ago, UN Women and Unilever announced the global launch of Unstereotype Alliance, with some of the world’s biggest companies, including Proctor & Gamble, Mars, Diageo, Facebook and Google signing up. Advertising agencies like JWT and UM have very recently published their own research, further shining the spotlight on gender stereotyping in advertising. 

At the ASA, we see our UK work as a complement to an increasingly global response to the issue. And we’re doing it with broad support from the UK advertising industry: the Committees of Advertising Practice (CAP) – the industry bodies which author the UK Advertising Codes that we administer – have been very closely involved in our work and will now flesh out the standards we need to help advertisers stay on the right side of the line.

Needless to say, our report has attracted a fair amount of comment. And commentators have made some interesting and important arguments. Take my “ads cannot be divorced from reality” point above. Clearly we – the UK advertising regulator - must take into account the way things are, but what should we do if, for example, an ad is reflecting a part of society as it is now, but that part is not fair and equal? 

The ad might simply be mirroring the way things are, but at a time when many people in our society, including through public policy and equality laws, are trying to mould it into something different. If we reign in the more extreme examples, are we being social engineers? Or are we simply taking a small step in redressing the imbalance in a society where the drip, drip, drip of gender stereotyping over many years has, itself, been social engineering. And social engineering which, ironically, has left us with too few engineers.

Read more: Why new rules on gender stereotyping in ads benefit men, too

The report gave news outlets a chance to run plenty of well-known ads from yesteryear. Fairy Liquid, Shake 'n' Vac and some real “even a woman can open it”-type horrors from decades ago. For some, that was an opportunity to make the point that ads really were sexist back then, but everything’s fine on the gender stereotyping front today. That argument shows a real lack of imagination. 

History has not stopped. If we’re looking back at ads of 50 years ago and marvelling at how we thought they were OK back then, despite knowing they were products of their time, won’t our children and grandchildren be doing exactly the same thing in 50 years’ time? What “norms” now will seem antiquated and unpleasant in the future? We think the evidence points to some portrayals of gender roles and characteristics being precisely such norms, excused by some today on the basis that that’s just the way it is.

Our report signals that change is coming. CAP will now work on the standards so we can pin down the rules and official guidance. We don’t want to catch advertisers out, so we and CAP will work hard to provide as much advice and training as we can, so they can get their ads right in the first place. And from next year, we at the ASA will make sure those standards are followed, taking care that our regulation is balanced and wholly respectful of the public’s desire to continue to see creative ads that are relevant, entertaining and informative. 

You won’t see a sea-change in the ads that appear, but we hope to smooth some of the rougher edges. This is a small but important step in making sure modern society is better represented in ads.

Guy Parker is CEO of the ASA