My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, put his finger on the central issue that we debated at some length on Monday and on which I have since had a chance to reflect. The Government seem to be taking two positions. One is that it is possible to separate economic policymaking from economic forecasting. I used to lecture on this subject and I can say categorically that that is simply nonsense. I cannot believe that any serious economist would accept that the two can be separated. In fact, the correct position is entirely the opposite. The optimal macroeconomic policy and the optimal macroeconomic forecast are part and parcel of the same piece of economic analysis. That enables one to focus, first, on the major difference between some of us and the Government on this matter.
The second position, again echoing the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is that however we define sustainability—several of us could try and I will have a go at it when we get to Report—the presumption that one should not make, and indeed economics tells us that exactly the reverse is the case, is that there is one unique state of government finances that is sustainable, rather than a multiplicity of such states. Therefore we must not make the error of assuming that there is only one sustainable policy, whatever the definition is.
Finally, since Monday I have had a chance to read the Economic and fiscal outlook. It reminds me of a debate that has been going on in economics for about 100 years, which is normally encapsulated in the phrase ““measurement without theory””. The great Nobel prizewinning economist attacked the founders of the National Bureau of Economic Research because they were great believers in measuring, but in doing so without theory. I am in a tiny minority here because I do not think much of this report as a piece of economics. It is an example of economic forecasting without theory, and that is really not the way to do it. So my intervention is to make it clear that we need some clarification from the Government, and what we need to accept that there are many possible policies that might be pursued, along with many sustainable positions.
Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Peston
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 1 December 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
722 c215GC Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 20:44:35 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_688232
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_688232
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_688232