Darling's budget was the usual politics-as-theatre show that so damages politics as a means of deciding about things in a grown-up way. As usual it comes down to individual bloggers like Wat Tyler and independent pressure groups like the Taxpayers Alliance to make sense of what is happening.
The major problem is that we, like Greece, cannot run up debts indefinitely without suffering the consequences. That is, we, the taxpayers, cannot dodge the consequences, but of course the politicians can, with their 'resettlement allowances' and consultancy fees.
Amazingly the BBC put a lot of emphasis on the fact that the deficit for this year will actually come in slightly below the forecast £178 billion. No mention, naturally, was made of the off-balance-sheet liabilities that mean that the public sector debt of £1.4 trillion is actually only around half of the true figure. Yes, we are talking about £2.8 billion here. Just to put that in context, that means around £47,000 for every man woman and child in the UK. According to the ONS there are 22.76 million people employed in the private sector, which means that out of their taxes, and the taxes of their private-sector children they are going to have to come up with a sum of £120,000 each.
But it's actually a lot worse than that, because before long interest payments on the national debt alone will be costing 10% of GDP. The unfunded liabilities held off the balance sheet will also be growing at some inflationary rate, so will increase the burden just as much as the on-balance sheet liabilities. The end result is a huge, utterly huge, burden of debt for the country for a generation or two.
I know that Gids rambles on about how serious the deficit is, but I think that most voters just think 'yeah, yeah, yeah, but we can just introduce a caviar tax, or stamp duty on Rolexes and everything will be fine'. I suppose this is a rational response to the fact that there are around 40 million people in the UK who are either not working, or working in the public sector. Of these, approx 14 million are under 18, leaving 26 million voters who may well be dependent on the generosity of the government (i.e. the taxpayer) for their income. Obviously there will be some non-working spouses and people with private income in there somewhere. However, what we are left with is around twenty six million out of a total of 48 million voters who, on balance, will prefer to see taxes go up than go down. This is about 54%. No wonder all parties are being economical with the truth.
I have heard a theory that, actually, David Cameron would prefer to see Gordon Brown win the next election, on the basis that the pain and suffering that is going to be inflicted on the population, through 'cuts' and increased taxes is going to be so severe that whichever government is in power when this is happening will be then unelectable for a generation: the so-called 'poisoned chalice election' theory.
There is, of course, an alternative to all this pain. We look to that master of economic theory, Robert Mugabe, and let the pound take the strain, stitching up those nice Chinese lenders, but, as an unfortunate side effect, wiping out the savings and pensions of a vast swathe of the population through rampant inflation. Currently the gilts markets don't buy into this theory, but Bill Gross, who has made more than his fair share of good calls on government bond markets in his long career is not so convinced.
