I generally agree with Stephen Gordon that if the Cons want to have a more effective Parliamentary Budget Officer (and of course all indications are that they don't), part of the answer is to provide the office with sufficient funding to do its work. But there's another element of the picture that strikes me as even more important to the future of the PBO.
After all, the main recent area of contention between Page and the Cons has been the gap between a PBO offering the best analysis possible based on the information available, and a government which is refusing to provide any information about what will have to be cut to meet implausible projections. Which is why it's laughable that the Cons have tried to attack Page's last few sets of numbers by accusing him of failing to take into account information they're hiding from him.
Ultimately, for Page to be able to do his job effectively, the main remaining requirement is for the Cons to stop hiding behind cabinet confidences and other excuses, and start allowing Page to see for himself whether they actually have a plan to meet their budgetary assumptions. And the fact that the Cons prefer instead to undermine the office based on their own choice to withhold information should signal that a more complete review will only confirm the PBO's suspicions that the Cons' numbers lack any basis in reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment