Treasury

Those hidden cuts in full

The truth about the Pre-Budget Report was revealed today by the Institute for Fiscal Studies: the new National Insurance tax will hit everyone on £14k or over, not £20k – and there are implied 19 per cent cuts of some £40 billion in the “non-protected” areas. The event was sold out, because it now has the reputation as the only place you learn the truth about Budgets passed by this government. Yet again, Gemma Tetlow from the IFS has unearthed the cuts which the Chancellor felt he had to conceal from the public (and – unwittingly, I hope – lied about this morning on the radio). Coffee House showed you yesterday that the

The cuts unveiled

Well, as expected, the IFS have put the lie to Darling’s claim that the budgets of non-ringfenced departments would be “pretty much flat”.  Here’s how Nick Robinson reports it: “The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that government plans imply £36bn of cuts in departmental spending ie over 19% from 2011-2014 in order to protect schools, hospitals and increase overseas aid. They say the police pledge is meaningless. They also say that defence, higher education, transport and housing are most likely to be hit.   The cost of paying back the debt over the next eight years is equivalent to £2,400 per family in taxes or cuts over that period.” UPDATE:

James Forsyth

An expensive piece of spin

Labour briefed out its plan to tax banks that pay bonuses so extensively that everyone in the City knew it was coming. The result is that a slew of banks paid their bonuses out early. Small, private banks that aren’t encumbered by bureaucracy moved to award their bonuses early as soon as these stories started appearing in the papers. The legislation says that the moment when the tax is awarded is when the tax applies, so if a bank awarded its bonuses as late as Monday — when the details of this plan were all over the papers — they avoided the charge. As one City accountant who works with

The markets’ verdict on the PBR

The press didn’t like Darling’s budget – and neither do the markets. What Darling didn’t say yesterday is that the Treasury is looking to borrow £243 billion from the City by the end of the financial year – this info was slipped out by the debt management office (link here). Brother, can you spare a quarter of a trillion quid? The markets are not sure they can. Gilts are being hammered today – biggest single day sell off for some time – 13bps so far this morning on 10yr gilts. They now stand at 63bps above German bunds, the widest since the crisis started. On another measure, Credit Default Swaps,

Your guide to the PBR Brownies<br />

How can you tell if you’re being lied to on budget day? Normally its easy: Gordon Brown’s lips move. But, today, there’s a handy guide. You can compare Darling’s fiction with the independent average calculated by HM Treasury. I have pulled out the relevant tables:

Collective failure exposed

The National Audit Office’s report into the government’s handling of the banking crisis and taxpayers’ continued exposure is a pandora’s box of financial horrors. The NAO estimate that taxpayers are underwriting liabilities exceeding £850bn and, buried in the document, is the revelation that the FSA and the Treasury gave RBS “a clean bill of health” in October 2008, days before the bank nearly collapsed. Details are scarce and I haven’t seen the relevant Treasury document to which the NAO refers; but this disclosure is astonishing, even by the standards of Fred the Shred, the FSA et al. This crisis was caused not by market failure but by systemic incompetence within

PBR 2008 and PBR 2009: a difference which may not make much difference

Yep, it’s that time of the year again: the run-up to the Pre-Budget Report, when we hear tales of splits between Number 10 and the Treasury on how they should approach the fiscal mess we’re in.  According to today’s Sunday Telegraph, and going off rumblings on Whitehall, Darling is pushing for a more expansive package of cuts.  Whereas Brown – and Ed Balls, natch – would prefer to emphasise all that investment, investment, investment. In which case, I was tempted to just copy-and-paste a post I wrote last year, on a similar subject, and at almost exactly the same time in the political cycle.  Its point was that stories about