Public spending: the final frontier?

5 Dec 13

Today’s Autumn Statement was more like a mini-Budget. What it shows is that the chancellor’s ultimate aim is permanently to roll back the frontiers of the state

Much of the comment on today’s Autumn Statement by Chancellor George Osborne will focus on the specific measures he announced (there were lots) and on the short-term politics of the debate about austerity. Only a few will notice the longer-term implications buried in some of the detail.

But first, a word about the process. When is an Autumn Statement not an Autumn Statement? When it’s really a Budget crossed with a (very) long-term Spending Review. Osborne might not like to admit it, but in some respects as chancellor he’s very like Gordon Brown. Let me explain.

Brown liked to trumpet his aspirations to being long-term and strategic in his thinking. He introduced multi-year Spending Reviews to be, and crucially to be seen to be, more strategic. Much to the surprise of many, Osborne retained the paraphernalia of Spending Reviews when he took over as chancellor in 2010 – he even extended their ‘strategicness’ by making his 2010 Spending Review a four-year plan, rather than a three-year plan as under Brown.

But Brown found it hard to stick to three years – his first four Spending Reviews (1998, 2000, 2002, 2004) took place every two years rather than three. Likewise, Osborne failed to keep to his four-year plan, holding the next Spending Review in 2013 rather than 2014.
Spending Reviews – under both governments – still have to be implemented in the annual Budget and both Brown and Osborne couldn’t resist the temptation to make all sorts of ‘tweeks’ to their ‘firm’ multi-year spending plans at every Budget.

But the similarity goes further – in his later years as chancellor, and then as prime minister, Brown insisted on making the Autumn Statement – which ought to be a broad policy statement – into a mini-Budget every year. It got so bad under Labour that Alistair Darling complained that as chancellor he had to deliver six Budgets in three years.

Osborne clearly thinks that, like Brown before him, the Autumn Statement is an opportunity too good to be confined to broad policy and so he’s loaded it, yet again, with immense amounts of detailed policy changes.

But hidden within this deluge of attempts at headline grabbing announcements, the real long-term strategy of Osborne is pretty clear – he wants to ‘roll back the frontiers of the state’ in a way that even Margaret Thatcher failed to achieve.

This is best shown in the following statement in the OBR’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook which accompanies (and is longer than) the Autumn Statement:

‘Our forecast implies that the UK’s budget deficit will have fallen by 11.1% of GDP over the nine years from 2009-10 (around £180bn in today’s terms). Around 80% of the reduction is accounted for by lower public spending. This will take government consumption of goods and services – a rough proxy for day-to-day spending on public services and administration – to its smallest share of national income at least since 1948, when comparable National Accounts data are first available. The remaining 20% of the drop in borrowing is accounted for by higher receipts, with the majority having taken place by 2012-13, largely as result of rises in the standard rate of VAT.’ (para 1.10, page 7).

The crucial bit here is in bold and shows what Osborne plans is a fundamental downsizing of the British state. The OBR has chosen the most dramatic figures, but the ones most usually used – total spending as a proportion of GDP – tell a very similar story.

On this metric their forecast is that total expenditure drops to 38.4% of GDP by 2018-19. The long-term average over the past four decades has been about 43% of GDP (page 159). Many on the Tory Right have been calling for public spending to be permanently cut to ‘US levels’ – i.e. about one-third of GDP.

On today’s forecast Chancellor Osborne would be half-way there by 2018 and all the signs are he’d like to keep on going in that direction, although he’s too canny to say so publicly.

But look again at the OBR statement: 80% of the reduction in the deficit has come from cuts to spending (reducing the size of the state) and only 20% from taxes – nearly all of that from the VAT increase. And, crucially, going forward, tax increase will play little or no role in deficit reduction.

So cutting public spending isn’t a reaction to the fiscal crisis – it’s a long-term strategy to permanently shrink the state. Maybe not quite back to 1948, but who knows?

This blog first appeared on Whitehall Watch, part of Manchester Policy Blogs

Did you enjoy this article?

AddToAny

Autumn Statement 2013 latest

Top