Knowledge and suspicion

There has been no parliamentary debate on the economic situation since November, although it has to be conceded that debate can merely result in concealment by the government and accusations by government and opposition alike.

Even if there were a debate, therefore, it is questionable how much light would be thrown on various data which are required to assess our situation, apart from the various series published more carefully now by the Office for National Statistics, - monthly and quarterly data on prices, unemployment, trade and output, etc.

There are other data which are not published, and there are disputes about the level of government indebtedness. The ONS had a moral victory over the Treasury recently in requiring the latter to add more off balance sheet items in the budget statement. The Prime Minister has obstinately refused to accept some very large items as government debt, such as PFI liabilities and pension liabilities. He has consequently lost any reputation for honesty and openness.

Where data are not reported and are ignored by government spin, they do not go unconsidered by analysts, and especially by foreigners who have large holdings of UK financial assets.

Credit Ratings Agencies, whose reputation depends on including all factors, are becoming concerned with the level of UK debt. Whether true or in jest, there was a suggestion that the British government had a much lower rating than MacDonald's, the fast food firm.

The Prime Minister may gain immediate advantage by concealment and deception, but serious questions are being asked which could lead to devastating conclusions for the country.

Many people are suggesting the the banks should be required to "come clean" and divulge all things which could deter dealing with them. It is surely not too much to ask that the government should as well?