In 2023, the BBC admitted that comparing government finances to a household budget is “dangerous territory” that can mislead audiences. And yet we still hear that myth every day.
Its own impartiality review said household budget analogies are wrong. So why do they keep talking about them?
Why? Because the myth is politically useful. It limits debate, justifies cuts to public services and social security, and presents ideology as arithmetic.
In this video, I unpack what the BBC admitted, why the myth survives, and how we challenge it.
Fiscal policy is about choices, as the BBC knows. It's time the BBC started making better ones when talking about that fact.
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
In 2023, the BBC admitted something quite remarkable. It said comparisons between household economies and government finances are, and I quote them, "Dangerous territory and can easily mislead." So the obvious question to ask is: If the BBC knows this, why are we still hearing the household myth every single day in their broadcasts, because that's what we actually have to suffer?
Here are their own words that explain precisely what they meant. They said: "Household analogies are dangerous territory, intensely contested, and can easily mislead." And they explained why. They said: "That states don't tend to retire, or die, or pay off their debts entirely. That is one reason why national debt is not like household personal debt." That is the BBC saying the government is not like a household, and everything they said, by the way, is true. Those statements are correct.
The review in which the BBC said this in 2023 says that the problem is not with party bias. They aren't saying that BBC journalists are trying to favour one party or another. They're saying the problem that they're facing in their broadcasts is a poor journalistic habit.
Again, I quote them, they say: "If journalists don't know the arguments, they're likely to revert to what one calls 'resting state', a set of presumptions," and they offered a warning, "never underestimate the BBC's resting state".
So, the household budget analogy survives because it is the BBC's default assumption, as it is much of society's, let's be totally honest. But this lets this myth persist. A lack of economic literacy is absolutely fundamental to its survival, and the review is blunt: "We think too many journalists lack understanding of basic economics or lack confidence reporting it," they said. And they added, "Some journalists seem to feel instinctively that debt is simply bad, full stop," and that 'full stop' is what they said, not what I added. So when journalists are unsure, they fall back on familiar metaphors, and the most familiar metaphor of all is the household budget analogy.
Why do politicians keep using it? Now that's a different reason. They use it because it's useful. They use it because they want to keep the status quo under control, and they want to limit the size of the government, but the BBC is all too ready to present fiscal policy as inevitability.
Again, the report says: "Fiscal policy decisions are also political choices; they're not inevitable, it's just that governments like to present them that way." And "The language of necessity can sound perilously close to political endorsement."
In other words, when the BBC reports that a politician has said that something is necessary, when in fact they've made a choice, they must point out that the choice has taken place, but too often they don't. Too often, they appear to imply that necessity is in fact true, and therefore they endorse the political choice as a consequence, and that is why all of this is so dangerous.
What is being done is that choices are being turned into facts. As a consequence, the BBC explicitly warned journalists that " BBC journalists should exercise extreme caution before suggesting a government 'will have to' raise taxes, cut spending, cut debt, because all of these are choices." You get my point.
The people who wrote the BBC report were worried that what were actually choices were being presented as inevitabilities. The household metaphor always comes with 'must' attached to it.
- You must tighten your belt.
- You must pay off the credit card.
- You must cut spending.
That is ideology described as arithmetic. And what this report warned to BBC journalists was, they must not present it as arithmetic, they must expose the ideology, and they must talk about the facts and the choices.
So, that's what the BBC knew in 2023, but the myth still dominates now in 2026, three years after this report came out. The fact is that the resting state of the BBC, that powerful thing that they said existed, which means that all journalists revert to a norm, which is that the household budget analogy is right, is being seen all around us.
The resting state is quite simply a set of metaphors.
It's about the convenient framing of the Westminster narrative of small government.
It's about the fear of the journalist sounding political by pointing out that the politician is, in fact, making a choice.
And it reflects throughout a lack of economic confidence on the part of those journalists who appear on our screens and on the airwaves.
So, the household analogy keeps coming back, and that's because it suits politicians that it be maintained. The household myth is politically useful. It lets the government say:
- "There is no money.
- We cannot afford social security.
- We must cut local government.
- We must cut public services."
And the BBC warned this in 2023, saying," The language of necessity can sound perilously close to policy endorsement," but that language still dominates UK politics. BBC journalists are failing us because they repeat these phrases time and time again, and as a consequence, they also satisfy their audiences because audiences have been taught about this myth, and it is the job of the BBC to correct that fact.
The review says, in fact, that many people cannot follow fiscal reporting precisely because they do rely on metaphors, but simplicity is not true, and false simplicity creates false economics. So whilst the household myth might become common sense, that does not make it true. The BBC should be pointing that out. But the BBC then worries about making the news. The review says that journalism too often sticks to political framing precisely for that reason, and that is why it repeats the Westminster assumption that there is a household budget analogy, but that is wrong. It's up to the BBC itself to show it is wrong, and to then ask the right questions, but we are not getting them.
The BBC is really saying three things in what it wrote in 2023, in my opinion.
It recognised that the government is not a household.
That fiscal policy is always about choice and not about necessity.
And the household metaphor misleads.
That was a profound admission on its part because it meant that the language of austerity is always political rhetoric, not economic truth, and that was an enormous admission to make.
This matters. The politics of care rejects, of course, the household myth. That household myth is the foundation of the politics of destruction that leads to the economics of failure, which we see all around us. It says we cannot afford care. But if the government is not a household, as the BBC has admitted, the real questions become :
- Do we have the people?
- Do we have the skills?
- And, do we have the resources to achieve what we want to make life better for people?
If we do, we can act. That is the critical point. Money is just a tool in all of this, and the government, as we know, can create the money it needs if the people, the skills, and the resources are available to achieve its goal. Taxes then simply manage inflation.
The BBC admitted the household analogy misleads. That is my conclusion, and yet the myth survives because it is easy journalism, useful politics, familiar language, and a story people have been taught for 40 years. It's time to put it to bed. It's time to get rid of it. It's time it was challenged. So next time someone says, "How will you pay for it?" Ask them, "Why are you using a metaphor the BBC says can mislead?"
Fiscal policy is not about arithmetic. There are choices to be made. We should be talking about the right choices, and the right choices revolve around the use of people, of skills and resources. The question is never about "is there enough money available?" Because if people, resources, and skills exist, we can always create the money to put them to good use.
That's what I think. What do you think? Do you believe that the household budget analogy should be put out to long grass, consigned to history, forgotten forever as something that is totally misleading, as the BBC say it is?
Poll
Loading ...
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Has the BBC made a choice either to deliberately ignore this review or just can’t be arsed because it’s too boring to train all of the relevant staff to challenge this “homely” terminology?
Perhaps because challenging means ” we will lose our access” to ministers etc?
Whatever the approach is craven.
Apologies if I’ve missed it but could you supply a direct link to the BBC report you describe?
It will be useful the next time I complain. I’ve made so many now I’m sure the staff have written me off as a lunatic so it would be nice to be able to refer to their own statements in support of my arguments.
2023 BCC Report: https://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/documents/thematic-review-taxation-public-spending-govt-borrowing-debt.pdf
See
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/29-30/39/body
Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1866
Payment out of Consolidated Fund: standing services.
(1)This section applies in respect of services which are, under an Act, payable out of the Consolidated Fund.
(2)The Comptroller and Auditor General shall, on receipt of a requisition from the Treasury, grant the Treasury a credit on the Exchequer account at the Bank of England (or on its growing balance).
Not an agreement most of us have with our bank………………
The basic idea of MMT was alive and well back in the mid 1800’s
I need to get out more often
No, you don’t.
You just need some more steam in your blood.
Thank you so much for this post. 🙂
A few days ago I sent an email to the BBC’s economics editor and made a formal complaint about the household analogy. I posted my complaint here. I have received no response to either the email or my complaint (I am not surprised).
When, as past experience suggests is likely, they dismiss my complaint, I shall appeal citing their own report of which I was previously unaware.
Thanks
I also sent a formal complaint about them using the household analogy – in reporting the January tax and spend figures. It didn’t take them long to reject . I wish I had mentioned their own report about not using the household shtick. But all politicians use it.
‘
Thank you for getting in touch with your complaint.
Feedback is really important to us because it helps us improve our programmes and services. So thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts.
We have reported the concerns raised in your complaint to programme makers and senior managers across the BBC.
Because the BBC is a public service, we must ensure our response to complaints is proportionate. We investigate issues further if the BBC’s editorial guidelines or regulatory standards might have been broken. This relates to things such as:
• The seriousness of the issue
• The potential to mislead and if there is an issue of harm to the complainant
• The nature of audience response and possible damage to trust and confidence in the BBC
If we receive large numbers of complaints about an issue, we may make our response available online.
In this instance we won’t be investigating the issue in more detail but we would like to assure you that we value your feedback and have shared it with the right people at the BBC.
It’s very much appreciated.
Thank you,
BBC Complaints Team
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints ‘
Persistence is key
@ Tim Kent
Firstly, you should have received an automatic “holding” receipt. If it’s not in your inbox, check your junk/spam folder. If no sign of such, check the address you sent it to on the BBC website.
Secondly, while on the website, check out the timescale they give for replying. Even then, if they can’t reply in that time there should be another “hang on, we’re getting on to it” in your inbox.
Finally, please don’t hold your breath.
I put in a complaint on 6 June 2023, the case was closed finally at the end of October 2023. And although I managed to get a rewording of an online article, it was not really satisfactory, and other points were not fully dealt with. Escalation of the matter took it to more BBC-people than I felt able to deal with, especially by email, so I took the small victory.
I wish you more luck than I had.
Thanks
V helpful, I didn’t know about that report.
Is there a link to that report?
I’d like to quote it, in conversation and correspondence.
BBC senior management are quite capable of steering their journalists, when it suits them – eg: when reporting on Israel/Palestine/genocide/war crimes/antisemitism.
So they could give them a steer on economics, and at least, in that case they would be steering them towards the truth, rather than falsehood.
I have added the link into the first line of the video now.
Thanks yet again to you and your team for a so much needed article!
Might other reasons/purposes for this centre stage, continuous, regular citizen and child harming myth-deceit , despite the B. B. C. knowing and stating better, also include the following?
1) A submerged determination to please/serve those who influence/control government policies
2) A submerged determination to create and maintain a general national ethos of not questioning “deep” policies and leadership/leaders critically/analytically
3) An unstated, “root” policy of only employing and promoting journalists/courtiers who unquestioningly accept/acquiesce in this, and possibly other deceitful and seriously harmful “ghost” policies with their associated mass acceptance and pernicious practices
4) ?
Capture?
Is government debt seen and reported radically differently in other European countries- for example in Scandinavia where they have more of a politics of care?
No.
There is a fairly standard method for this. It is a US standard.
There are some journalists tucked away in the BBC who talk some economic sense like Andy Verity. The problem is they are few and far between.
Agreed
Is it because they are frit, don’t have a spine and don’t want to upset the apple-cart?
It goes without saying that the BBC, specifically it’s news output, is not in any way impartial not only due to the way it’s funded but how it’s influenced by politics. I don’t need to remind people how the makeup of the senior BBC management is determined by not just the government of the day but also influenced by the general right-wing media ecosystem. Therefore what and how they report it is governed by these intrinsic influences. Hence the BBC journalists who report on economics are on the whole not allowed to be sufficiently curious enough and so persist in the continued reliance on using the household analogy to describe how money and economics actually work.
I can just see now the screaming accusatory headlines of the Mail, Telegraph, Times, the usual cabal of Red Tops and not forgetting the Tufton Street mafia if BBC news actually started to explain how and why the household analogy is wrong.
So to answer my own question: yes it, the BBC is frit.
It is…
I think you posted a twitter feed by Andrew Verity a few years ago in which he said something very similar.
Andrew Verity seems to have been the only BBC economics correspondent prepared to talk away from the household metaphor – which may be why he is now assigned to things other than the economy.
Agreed
That is why we never hear from him
There is a strong ecological case to be made for the relevance of this analogy however . Mainly that our planet IS the household . Everything we ever needed to expand or maintain the growth of our species is here . Until economists who mainly use accountancy techniques without a column clearly labelled nature also become ecologists with a clear understanding of those biophisycal constraints , no progress can be made . The falling EROI of oil which underpins all of our industrial civilisation is where the real predicament is .
With an abundantly cheap and clean form of energy we would have no need for political debate , everyone would be content but it is not the case .
In this sense , there is no such thing as economic growth , just growth of credit , from households to businesses to local authority to governments but the biggest form of overdraft facing our species is ecological overshoot , no amount of clever accountancy tricks will change that.
Paraphrasing the mathematician Sid Smith ; the only thing we can confidently predict about unsustainable systems is that they will not be sustained.
These post growth discussions are beginning to enter mainstream politics but very slowly as they are still seen as “woowoo” stuff .
Degrowth is coming to our species, that much is inevitable and the way we manage this decline ( what this blog is actually about ) is only a binary choice , we either completely abandon the notion of GDP and purposefully limit our comsumption of natural resources along with population control and in favour of equality and well being or we keep with the status quo and let nature do the corrections for us . The cooperation needed to achieve the first option is clearly our main stumbling block but there will not be a third option .
There can no funding of the future by consuming it today. The cooperation needed to achieve the first option will
The ecologist Bill Rees gives a thorough overview of our predicament here for anyone interested.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LQTuDttP2Yg&pp=0gcJCY4Bo7VqN5tD
Thanks
Noted
But triple entry does not work
Sustainable cost accounting might. Look it up.
Well said.
I think that this shows to me that the BBC is more self aware than we think, that maybe internally, factions are at war with each other.
It is both troubling and a sign of hope and gets me thinking that the BBC may still be worth fighting for.
I haven’t commented for some time because I’ve pretty much reigned myself to believeing that nothing is going to change in my increasingly short lifetime and there’s nothing I can do about it anyway.
However I am still reading your output and was much taken by this post. Like several other commentators I hadn’t seen that report before and well done, Richard, for bringing it to our attention.
As it happens (without going into specifics) I was in a meeting yesterday chaired by a leading journalist and attended by another. The chairman I have met and I do know that he fully understand that the government does not have the same restraints as a houshold. The other journalist I am sure does too. Yet still we get that nonsense appearing in their newspapers.
Thanks Nigel.
A shame you cannot make this weekend.
One definition of lying that I think we can all agree on is as follows:
“Lying is the act of knowingly communicating false information with the intent to deceive, mislead, or create a false belief in another person”
We need to call this out for what it is. This is deliberate and systematic lying by the BBC and of course all the other mainstream “news” sources are guilty of it. In this case I also believe that this lying by omission is much more dangerous than normal lying as lies can be fact checked and condemned but omissions cannot and the result is our collective consent is intentionally manufactured for this BS:
https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/5thsKEsuM5FRVEF1TesEb
The Household analogy is as wrong footed as the old idea that the Earth was the centre of the universe. You can’t have a useful dialogue about our solar system if you are talking with someone who, persuaded by their personal experience of seeing the sun rise in the east and moving across the sky to set in the west, claims that it is ‘obvious’ that the Earth is the centre around which all celestial bodies move. It doesn’t really matter too much as far as running the farm is concerned, but if you want to go the moon, or mars or explore further afield, it is a dangerous starting point which will surely end in disaster.