Don't celebrate just yet, George. Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Today's borrowing figures are good news - but we're not out of the woods yet

Britain will need five more years like this if George Osborne is to have any chance of balancing the books, warns Nida Broughton.

Today’s Government borrowing figures provide an optimistic backdrop to the Chancellor’s Summer Budget on 8 July. The year has got off to a good start. In March, the OBR expected the total amount borrowed in 2015-16 to fall by around 17%. So far, borrowing in the first two months of 2015-16 is around 24% lower than the same time last year.

It is good news – and it will be a relief for the Chancellor.  The SMF’s analysis shows that George Osborne has set himself a difficult task for this Parliament.  What seems like an easy job – saving £1 in every £100 for two years, turns out to be rather more difficult when spending promises and other factors outside the Government’s direct control have to be paid for. Commitments to spend more on the NHS, international aid and schools have been made. Debt interest payments are forecast to continue to rise. With huge chunks of the Government budget protected from cuts, the SMF estimates that the true scale of the challenge could be closer to having to save £12 in every £100.

Achieving those level of cuts will be hard enough – certainly harder than in 2010. With the easiest cuts already made, Government will need to be innovative to save money whilst keeping up the quality of public services. Yet, the ability to actually push through these cuts, though important, will not be as crucial as economic growth in getting the deficit down.

A look at the OBR’s March 2015 forecast shows that rising tax revenues is supposed to do the majority of the hard work in clearing the deficit. Tax revenues are expected to rise by roughly £20 billion- £30 billion every year over the next few years, allowing borrowing – expected by the OBR to be around £75 billion in 2015-16 - to dwindle to zero by 2018-19.

The Chancellor needs four years of steady economic growth to drive up tax revenues. The question is whether the UK economy can deliver that. We do not yet know whether the poor productivity growth we have seen since the crisis is evidence of a “new normal”; or whether we can in fact return to the levels of growth seen pre-crisis. How ephemeral was the growth we saw before the crash, and how much permanent damage has the economy taken because of the crisis?

The public finance forecast hinges on this. The OBR’s forecasts assume that the answer lies somewhere in the middle: that the economy’s potential to grow has taken a hit, but that it will slowly return to its historical average.  The SMF’s analysis shows that if this does not happen, then borrowing would fail to be eliminated by 2018-19, even if all the cuts currently planned are fully implemented.

The borrowing figures provide some good news. Government revenues – mainly from taxes – are 4% higher than this time last year. It’s a good start, but we’re going to need another few more years of same if the public finances are to be repaired.

Nida Broughton is Senior Economist at the Social Market Foundation.

Getty
Show Hide image

The economics of outrage: Why you haven't seen the end of Katie Hopkins

Her distasteful tweet may have cost her a job at LBC, but this isn't the last we've seen of Britain's biggest troll. 

Another atrocity, other surge of grief and fear, and there like clockwork was the UK’s biggest troll. Hours after the explosion at the Manchester Arena that killed 22 mostly young and female concert goers, Katie Hopkins weighed in with a very on-brand tweet calling for a “final solution” to the complex issue of terrorism.

She quickly deleted it, replacing the offending phrase with the words “true solution”, but did not tone down the essentially fascist message. Few thought it had been an innocent mistake on the part of someone unaware of the historical connotations of those two words.  And no matter how many urged their fellow web users not to give Hopkins the attention she craved, it still sparked angry tweets, condemnatory news articles and even reports to the police.

Hopkins has lost her presenting job at LBC radio, but she is yet to lose her column at Mail Online, and it’s quite likely she won’t.

Mail Online and its print counterpart The Daily Mail have regularly shown they are prepared to go down the deliberately divisive path Hopkins was signposting. But even if the site's managing editor Martin Clarke was secretly a liberal sandal-wearer, there are also very good economic reasons for Mail Online to stick with her. The extreme and outrageous is great at gaining attention, and attention is what makes money for Mail Online.

It is ironic that Hopkins’s career was initially helped by TV’s attempts to provide balance. Producers could rely on her to provide a counterweight to even the most committed and rational bleeding-heart liberal.

As Patrick Smith, a former media specialist who is currently a senior reporter at BuzzFeed News points out: “It’s very difficult for producers who are legally bound to be balanced, they will sometimes literally have lawyers in the room.”

“That in a way is why some people who are skirting very close or beyond the bounds of taste and decency get on air.”

But while TV may have made Hopkins, it is online where her extreme views perform best.  As digital publishers have learned, the best way to get the shares, clicks and page views that make them money is to provoke an emotional response. And there are few things as good at provoking an emotional response as extreme and outrageous political views.

And in many ways it doesn’t matter whether that response is negative or positive. Those who complain about what Hopkins says are also the ones who draw attention to it – many will read what she writes in order to know exactly why they should hate her.

Of course using outrageous views as a sales tactic is not confined to the web – The Daily Mail prints columns by Sarah Vine for a reason - but the risks of pushing the boundaries of taste and decency are greater in a linear, analogue world. Cancelling a newspaper subscription or changing radio station is a simpler and often longer-lasting act than pledging to never click on a tempting link on Twitter or Facebook. LBC may have had far more to lose from sticking with Hopkins than Mail Online does, and much less to gain. Someone prepared to say what Hopkins says will not be out of work for long. 

0800 7318496