Where are Britain's spending cuts?

British budget statistics show no trace of big spending cuts and austerity measures in Britain, Karlsson writes.

Yves Herman/Reuters/File
In this November 2012 file photo, Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron arrives at the EU council headquarters in Brussels for a European Union leaders summit discussing the European Union's long-term budget. Spending is up in Britain, despite talk of big cuts, Karlsson writes.

We've all heard the fairy tale of the big spending cuts and "austerity" in Britain. Yet there is no trace of that in the British budget statistics. During October for example, spending excluding interest payments was £48.3 billion, up by 9% compared to Ovtober 2011. That reflected largely calendar effects, but if you look at the August-October period as a whole, the increase was 3.7%.  And for the entire January-October 2012 period spending increased by 3.9% compared to January-October 2011. This is significantly above the rate of inflation (especially if you look at the GDP or domestic demand deflators) and also significantly above nominal GDP growth.

Because of that, and because of the fact that total tax revenue has been roughly unchanged in nominal termsm (which is to say they've fallen in real terms), the deficit has increased by about £10 billion. The increase would have been even larger if interest rates hadn't been so low due to Bank of  England QE and because of the irrational investor belief in British bonds as "safe havens"., something that has caused interest payments to decline despite a rising debt level.

It could also be noted that because of a misleading accounting trick, formal net borrowing is down. What they did was to transfer the Royal Mail pension fund to a government institution, and then subtract the assets of that fund from net borrowing and net debt, while ignoring the liabilities that the fund has. This didn't really reduce the real burden of debt, but it reduced formal net debt, and for this year, formal net borrowing.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Where are Britain's spending cuts?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Stefan-Karlsson/2012/1126/Where-are-Britain-s-spending-cuts
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe