General Election 2017 - The Budget: Progressive optimism vs Tory pessimism

In the general election campaign so far, there's a determination on the Right to spread the idea that their own plans are sensible and that their opponent's are chaotic and don't add up. But that's a crudely simplistic narrative and it comes with a couple of main assumptions that need to be broken through.

On the first assumption: none of the six main parties in England, Wales and Scotland are calling for a drastic overhaul to Britain's economic system. On the second: most economic systems work on their own terms. The sums will add up, whoever is in government. The biggest difference between progressive and conservative versions is their contrasting optimism and pessimism.

While conservatives, and progressives, will try to make the management of the budget a question of competence, or a question of right and wrong answers, those are not the primary questions facing voters. The real question to consider first, is: what are you trying to achieve?

How Ideology affects Economics

All approaches to the economy are ideological: they propose a set of steps to follow, with an intended outcome - an intentional attempt at shaping society to maximise certain behaviours and to minimise others.

When looking at the pitches made by progressives and conservatives, there are two elements you should consider, one for each of the two main categories of public spending - Current and Capital.

For clarity: Current spending is the day-to-day spending on the departmental budgets, historically offset against government revenue. Capital spending is long term infrastructure investment, usually funded by government borrowing.

On Current spending, you need to consider the question of intervention vs laissez faire: do you consider government action in any given policy area to be helping or interfering?

On Capital spending, you need to consider whether to invest in the future or tackle public debt: do you consider public debt or out-of-date technology and buildings for schools, hospitals, or roads and rails for businesses, the bigger burden on the future?

These two questions are deeply connected.

How entwined they are can be illustrated by the long term plan pursued by the Tories. Planning to 'balance' the budget by having both Current and Capital spending offset by revenue, severely limits how much the government can do in the present and for the future. Even more so as they pursue a huge reduction in the proportion of Britain's GDP, the country's gross wealth, the government is spending.

Now, borrowing to fund Current spending, on the day to day department costs, would theoretically be adding to the public debt at the expense of the future (hence the Tories popular refrain about not burdening our children). But Labour - whether you take the vision for the treasury as assembled by Brown, Balls or McDonnell - has not and does not intend to do that.

Under Labour and the Liberal Democrats, the intention has been - from at least the leaderships of John Smith and Paddy Ashdown - to follow a Keynesian approach: to balance just Current spending against tax revenues, thereby not accumulating public debt to pay for the needs of the present.

This approach does, however, leave Capital spending to be funded by borrowing.

The reasoning behind this is that the longer term Capital spending behaves much differently to Current spending. For a government, borrowing is cheap and the added value created by using it for long term investment is huge - so much so that the actual cost of borrowing is ultimately offset by the increased economic growth that results, and the rise in tax revenue that follows.

How to fund investment

The progressive view of these budget questions has a particular focus on Capital spending, refusing the simplistic calculation that public debt equals a burden on the future. Public debts, within reason and where they result from investment in the future, are largely harmless.

But the negative impact of poor infrastructure, on every area of society, could be disastrous. Just look at the mess that resulted from outdated operating systems on NHS computers. But the same point extends to more mundane situations: old and crumbling school buildings, potholed and traffic strewn roads, ports with insufficient capacity, a telecommunications network that doesn't keep up with the needs of people and businesses.

There are, of course, always attempts at being clever in order to reduce borrowing for Capital projects, even when they aren't covered by tax revenues. New Labour tried something new, expanding on plans they inherited to seek out private investors for its controversial and now infamous 'Private Finance Initiatives', as a way to fund Capital spending without adding to the public debt.

The New Labour plan for private-funded public investment built hospitals - but the private sector expects returns. The PFIs left those institutions with the expectation to deliver astronomical returns on those investments - some £300bn all told - and private benefactors continue to receive interest payments from hospital trusts in the hundreds of millions.

In a way, New Labour's approach resembles the Coalition plan for funding higher education - shifting a public debt, weighing on the Current budget, onto citizens as private debt. In a stroke, a chunk of Current spending and public debt was privatised.

But like the burdens that were shifted onto the backs of hospital trusts, the treasury saw a clever accounting trick,  not the social impact of burdensome debt - though at least more limitations were put in place to protect students than the hospital trusts received with PFIs. In either case, the financial burden ends up on the public books anyway.

The Conservatives plan was to oppose borrowing and fund both Current and Capital only with tax revenues. From a progressive view this was reckless, as it would result in one of two outcomes: it would mean slashing spending on people's wellbeing in the present, while still having them pay tax to fund Capital projects that will never bear fruit for them, or it would mean slashing both to endlessly pay off mostly harmless debt.

The underlying motivations for conservatives to pursue this path is as simple as 'faith' in the market. A belief that private schemes are better than public action - seeing public action as interference that just distorts outcomes. Instead of taking the advantage of scale provided by the collective public option, where resources are pooled to maximise their use, conservatives prefer personal private schemes of insurance to pay for services.

How the government finances stand

The overriding aim of this privatising conservative mentality is to fight against 'dependence'. But to pursue that low tax, low interference, approach, that promotes private action, is not compatible with maintaining well funded public services. At some point, something will have to give. To emphasise the point, consider how the public finances stand after seven years of Tory government.

Current spending stands this past year at around £720 billion to £740 billion in revenue, while Capital spending sits at around £80 billion. As the Tories combine Current and Capital spending to calculate the deficit, the public debt increased by about £59 billion.

That will mean, in the coming years - helped perhaps if revenues rise due to economic recovery or growth - 'balancing' the budget will still require a combination of tax rises and budget cuts, to both Capital and Current spending, amounting to over £60 billion a year - and perhaps more, if the aim is to produce a surplus with which to pay down the public debt.

We know that some £22 billion is to come from the NHS, through the finding of 'savings'. Another £3 billion is coming from schools, thanks to recent funding changes. More will come from the welfare freeze. There is clearly an intention to clear some of the cost of social care off the public books by making middle class homeowners pay with their assets. But that still leaves a lot of cuts.

As for the Liberal Democrat and Labour plans, both are actually fairly similar and neither are that tremendously radical. In fact, they're downright sensibly Keynesian. Both intend to balance the Current, day-to-day departmental, spending against tax revenues - with modest tax rises, mostly on the rich, making more room for manoeuvre.

And here is something interesting. On the measure of balancing the Current budget: it's already balanced. In fact it's in surplus. By some £20 billion. It is projected to be in surplus by about the same amount next year. The previous year the Current budget was only £3 billion in deficit. If the job was to rebalance government spending and revenue, the job is nearly three years done.

With their commitments fully costed, either Labour or the Lib Dems would come into government with a very positive outlook on the public finances - seeing the public books as being in a healthy state. The positivity of either of these parties would alone be a drastic turn around from the doomsaying Tories, who promise nothing but ever more cuts.

It is remarkable the affect that optimism and positivity alone can have in economics, particularly in contrast to the Tories doom and gloom and neverending warnings. But the renewed public investment, called for by all progressive parties, could provide a huge long term boost to Britain. From the mass building of new homes to long term support for innovative new industries - particularly in green energy - there would be a lot to be optimistic about.

How we frame debt matters

As for the deficit and debt? Well, how these are drawn up may have to change when the Tories are eventually ousted, because the way we frame these matters. Conservatives have been very successful at getting into circulation the idea that fiscal credibility means opposing public debt. Progressives must counter that narrative by reframing the ideas.

If the value added by Capital spending vastly outweighs its cost - thus removing it as a factor in balancing a budget - it might well be worth starting to calculate it separately from the deficit and debt which results from the Current budget. That means separating out public debt into two categories: productive Capital debt and unproductive deficit debt.

The progressive aim will be responsibility with productive Capital debt and credibility in tackling and avoiding the unproductive Current deficits and debt. Consider: In the three years between 2015 and 2018, there will have been a Current budget surplus of £47bn. The deficit in that period, that Tories use to justify austerity, is the result of £233bn in Capital spending - investment in long term projects.

That means, at the end of that three year period, around 12% of our total public debt is just from that productive long term investment. When you consider the long term, positive impact of that Capital spending, it makes the public debt a lot less intimidating. It also resets priorities.

How we move forward

To be a progressive is to be an optimist - to be believe that people have the power to change things for the better. While government spending is not the be-all-end-all mechanism for that, progressives argue that it has an important role to play and is currently being poorly utilised.

There are huge challenges to face and most them require sturdy long term commitment. Poverty needs to be addressed with affordable housing and energy, and with compassionate welfare that gets people back on their own feet.

Britain's imbalanced economy needs restructuring around innovative new industries and businesses, spread out across the regions, with green energy power them and the technical skills to run them.

The public sector is able to deliver that long term investment in a way private finance has not yet been able to match. It is part of the solution. The next step is to grasp that idea and to pursue it with positivity and energy. Progress is possible and austerity not inevitable.

References

'Guidance: How to understand public sector spending'; from HM Treasury; 29 May 2013.

Lawrence Summers & Charles W Eliot's 'International Monetary Fund: Why public investment really is a free lunch'; in the Financial Times; 6 October 2014.

Mariana Mazzucato in 'Do budget deficits matter? Why is no-one talking about them? DEBATE - BBC Newsnight'; on the BBC, from YouTube; 3 May 2017.

Youssef El-Gingihy's 'If you think there is no money for NHS funding you’d be right – PFI has sucked it dry: The total UK Private Finance Initiatives (PFI) debt is over £300bn. To put it more simply: this debt would cover the entire NHS budget for approximately two and a half years'; in The Independent; 13 July 2016.

Vic George & Paul Wilding's 'Welfare And Ideology'; Harvester Wheatsheaf; 1994. [Buy Now]

'Policy Paper: Spring Budget 2017'; from HM Treasury; 8 March 2017.

'Policy Paper: Budget 2016'; from HM Treasury; from HM Treasury; 16 March 2016.

Hugh Pym's 'The curious tale of £22bn NHS efficiency savings'; on the BBC; 20 March 2016.

Tara Carey's 'Parents hold national day of action in protest against funding cuts for education'; in The London Economic; 24 May 2017.