Tories accused of lying in campaign poster that claims deficit has halved.

[Mr Angry]

Off to a flying start it would seem.

"The Conservatives have been accused of using “dishonesty as a weapon” after making inaccurate claims that the Government had halved Britain’s deficit.

The claim – contained in the party’s first general election campaign poster – was branded a “fib” and condemned as deceptive even by right-leaning commentators.

What was intended to be the smooth launch of the new year Conservative message on the economy rapidly unravelled just hours after David Cameron had unveiled the poster which is due to go up on billboards across the country.

Under the headline “Let’s stay on the road to a stronger economy”, the poster goes on to list the Government’s achievements of “1.75 million more people in work”, “760,000 more businesses” and “the deficit halved”.

But the final claim was immediately debunked by the normally supportive Spectator magazine."

The indy.

[swoop101]

oh wow, what a shock.
A political party using statistics to show themselves in a better light than the opposition want us to believe.
It will be the other side doing exactly the same next week.

I am bored of this campaign already.

[nomadking]

Well the GMB union were happy with the definition, along with the Office for Budget Responsibility.
From GMB Nottingham site

Notes to editorsBelow are two paragraphs for the Executive Summary from the Office for Budget Responsibility's latest Economic and fiscal outlook published on 3 December 2014.
This publication sets out forecasts for the economy and the public finances, and an assessment of whether the Government is likely to achieve its fiscal mandate, supplementary target and welfare cap.
1.7 On the Government’s latest plans and medium-term assumptions, we are now in the fifth year of what is projected to be a 10-year fiscal consolidation. Relative to GDP, the budget deficit has been halved to date, thanks primarily to lower departmental spending (both current and capital) and lower welfare spending.

[Mr Angry]

Nomadking. You neglected to highlight the "Relative to GDP" element from the sentence on the GMB site (which is also the ratio / comparator used by the OBR in the section quoted by the GMB on their site).

That is part of the issue.

From the Independent article:

"I don’t dispute that the ratio is widely accepted and more useful to economists, but a deficit/GDP ratio is different to ‘the deficit’ which is measured in pounds,” Mr Nelson wrote. “If you want to talk about the ratio, you need to say so – otherwise the sentence is a porkie."

On the matter of quoting from the OBRs EFO relevant to the Autumn statement I refer you to an earlier post of mine on the matter from December 5th 2014 here:

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/35745138-post5.html

"What very few people have picked up on - aside from perhaps the IFS - is the fact that the EFO (Economic and Fiscal Oultook) report from the OBR (Office for Budgetary Responsibility) which Osborne relied upon and used selectively in his Autumn Statement contained the following statement;

"During the week before publication we produced our final forecast, incorporating the third quarter GDP data released by the ONS on 26 November and the final package of policy measures. We were provided with final details of most major policy decisions with a potential impact on the economy forecast on 25 November.

These were incorporated into our final economy forecast. On 28 November, we were provided Economic and fiscal outlook with details of changes to spending plans in 2015 - 16 – and the Treasury’s assumption for total spending growth from 2016-17 onwards – that would have had an effect on our economy forecast had they been provided in time. This has meant that in this EFO unfortunately our economy and fiscal forecasts are not fully consistent."

[nomadking]

It was still using the term "deficit". If there are two possible meanings for a term in a particular area, eg economics, then a different term should be used for each meaning, or use of the term is preceded by another word to distinguish its full meaning.

Ed Milliband thinks things should be measured against GDP.

This starts with getting the national debt falling as a proportion of national income as soon as possible within the next Parliament.

Carl Emmerson, deputy director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said that by not signing up to Mr Osborne's plans for a £23bn surplus in 2020, Labour had £50bn "wriggle room" compared to the Conservatives' plans.
Responding to Mr Miliband's speech for the Conservatives, Business minister Matthew Hancock said the plans were a "risk to the economic recovery".
He said: "Labour's policy is to run deficits forever - more borrowing that would add to the national debt every single year.
"That would mean more debt than hardworking taxpayers or our children could ever hope to repay."

So according to Ed Milliband, not borrowing means ALWAYS borrowing, even when there is a budget surplus.

Originally Posted by nomadking

It was still using the term "deficit". If there are two possible meanings for a term in a particular area, eg economics, then a different term should be used for each meaning, or use of the term is preceded by another word to distinguish its full meaning.

Pretty sure when referencing the deficit people think of the amount over income we're spending per year.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by nomadking

It was still using the term "deficit". If there are two possible meanings for a term in a particular area, eg economics, then a different term should be used for each meaning, or use of the term is preceded by another word to distinguish its full meaning.

Ed Milliband thinks things should be measured against GDP.


So according to Ed Milliband, not borrowing means ALWAYS borrowing, even when there is a budget surplus.

Admittedly I only had a quick scan through the odious Mr Miliband's speech but I didn't see any reference to GDP as a ratio for measurement in relation to the deficit.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Your link title seems to be a bit misleading. Admittedly I only had a quick scan through the odious Mr Miliband's speech but I didn't see any reference to GDP as a ratio for measurement in relation to the deficit.

Didn't say it did, but he DOES refer to national debt as a %age of GDP. If GDP goes up, then he is intending to borrow MORE and it will still fulfil his statement. Would people fully understand that? He is happy to measure borrowing & debt against GDP. If GDP went down, would he therefore reduce borrowing and debt? Of course not. Isn't that very misleading?

If the original report had referred to "X deficit", where X distinguishes the meaning and "X" had been left out, then that would have been misleading. The report used the term on its own. Either that was acceptable usage or different term should have been used. Is there a more correct term, consisting of one or two words?

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Didn't say it did, but he DOES refer to national debt as a %age of GDP. If GDP goes up, then he is intending to borrow MORE and it will still fulfil his statement. Would people fully understand that?

If the original report had referred to "X deficit", where X distinguishes the meaning and "X" had been left out, then that would have been misleading. The report used the term on its own. Either that was acceptable usage or different term should have been used. Is there a more correct term, consisting of one or two words?

Where in his speech does he refer to national debt as a percentage of GDP?

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Where in his speech does he refer to national debt as a percentage of GDP?

I did put it in quotes, but here it is again.

This starts with getting the national debt falling as a proportion of national income as soon as possible within the next Parliament.

If GDP is rising then it will achieve that all by itself.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by nomadking

I did put it in quotes, but here it is again.
If GDP is rising then it will achieve that all by itself.

Sorry, but are "National income" and "GDP" not two different things?

This area is not my forte.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Sorry, but are "National income" and "GDP" not two different things?

This area is not my forte.

Replace my usage of "GDP" with "National income" and the statements are STILL true.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Replace my usage of "GDP" with "National income" and the statements are STILL true.

That would only lead to more confusion. Your usage of "GDP" and Miliband's non usage of "GDP" are, just like "GDP" and "National income", two different things.

As i said previously, this area is not my forte. We are, however, meandering off the thread subject of the Tories having come in for criticism having launched their campaign manifesto using some apparently questionable figures.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

That would only lead to more confusion. Your usage of "GDP" and Miliband's non usage of "GDP" are, just like "GDP" and "National income", two different things.

As i said previously, this area is not my forte. We are, however, meandering off the thread subject of the Tories having come in for criticism having launched their campaign manifesto using some apparently questionable figures.

Replace where I have said "GDP" with "National Income" and my statements still hold as I was referring to what he said. As "National Income" goes up, the national debt as a %age of it, will tend to go down. As it varies up and down, it is meaningless to measure things against GDP or National Income. When at some point, National Income actually goes down, would he still reduce the national debt as a %age of it? That would involve massive cutbacks and/or tax rises.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Replace where I have said "GDP" with "National Income" and my statements still hold as I was referring to what he said. As "National Income" goes up, the national debt as a %age of it, will tend to go down. As it varies up and down, it is meaningless to measure things against GDP or National Income. When at some point, National Income actually goes down, would he still reduce the national debt as a %age of it? That would involve massive cutbacks and/or tax rises.

You said GDP, not Miliband. That was my point.

I'm not that "up" on economics so I can't vouch for or dispute with any degree of self certainty your macro economic analysis.

However, given your assertion "As it varies up and down, it is meaningless to measure things against GDP or National Income" I think it's pointess to hypothesize about what Miliband may or may not do in the circumstances you have outlined.

Best let him give the electorate enough rope to hang him with if his statements don't add up as seems to be the case with the Tories.

Now, back to the topic please.