Unlock the editor’s digestion free
FT editor Roula Khalaf, chooses his favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.
It didn’t mean to be like this. The independent office for the UK’s responsibility was created to ensure that the UK governments were fixed to fix their finances. However, 15 years, we are witnessing a terrible performance of the tail of the financial guard who wandered the dog.
Rachel Reeves did not cut the benefits last month, because it thinks that this is the right thing, but in response to the reconstruction of an OBR prediction. This seemed to be painful when the OBB officials added to the cuts that the Chancelless added to the cuts. Of course, the landscape of Chancellor’s long-term economic potential is more optimistic than any other protecaster, because it was given only one transmission tab.
It is unacceptable for public services and taxes to the ballot box, but in a small office above the Ministry of Justice, and in a small office of the Ministry of Justice, and with responsible officials. The OBR is not a specialist with the most important decision that assessing the expected productivity of England. As David Miles, one of three officials, openly, clearly Accepted last yearThis hypothesis is “not more than a educated guess and maybe not very educated.”
I don’t criticize the OBR or the government here. This is its activities in practice, which resulted in the financial framework of England, its incentives and this unacceptable result. There are four potential solutions.
First, Rupert Harrison, which has previously been one of the architects of the current frame of the Chancellor George Osborne and the current frame arguedOBR predictions would be less important if governments (both conservative and labor) allow themselves to more Leeway against their financial rules. Then, it became more pessimistic about the improvement of interest rates or the outlook of OBR. The policy was not needed to change and the headroom is slowly fell.
Unfortunately, incentives in the system are militates against such a conclusion. Why will you only take the campaign to spend it for the ministers? Why leaves the headroom for another government after the loss of a choice? The financial framework fails, because everyone knows, because everyone will work firmly against the rules and make difficult taxes and spending decisions will blame the OBR.
Secondly, we can do the OBR beef to prevent the predictions for thousands of variables 52 staff Make terrible educated guesses. Watchdog so much Skirt, I said that I can’t subscribe to any news organization. If you walk in Westminster, you can also see a Junior OBR official to the treasury to sit at its single Bloomberg terminal to mark market prices.
This happens when it also understands that Britain’s bank is “dimensional“The increase in personnel for the forecasting process will add something like 100 new roles. This combination is a combination of public resources, even if I do not see the main reporting problem of the OBR.
Third, governments can grow a little more about the forecast changes. OBR, REVES 54 percent is likely In 2029-30, it is only 48 percent more likely to transfer its main financial order after cutting well-being. These are differences without the material difference. The government has been more convenient with deficit changes since five years with this forecast changes, but I doubt that the Liz Truss has to blame the skipping of the labor of my episode.
Since none of the above is, the other solution is to return the affairs of productivity to the ministers. OBR would still use the experience to assess the financial results of any economic forecast. No one else in the UK can do this position remotely, but also these officials. However, the chancellor would be responsible for the most responsibility of the forecast.
Reeves markets should be convinced that the main economic assumption of the government is acceptable. Of course, the risk, forecasts may lose reliability with markets and we will all pay a price.
However, this risk is lower for the democratic legitimacy, which is responsible for the most sensitive taxes and is responsible for the democratic legitimacy. Very reluctant, I came to have the right to have the right to determine their productivity forecasts again. They should take responsibility for getting them properly.
chris.giles@ft.com
