No case to cut more than Labour

In the March Budget, Labour set out plans to cut public spending by £38 billion. The OBR's report today provides no justification to go any further next week.

The Office of Budget Responsibility predict that growth will come in lower than forecast in the March Budget but that borrowing will also be lower. With the coalition government intent on cutting a range of taxes, we should be in no doubt about the justification for spending cuts above and beyond the £38 billion mooted in Alistair Darling’s final Budget. They are driven by ideology not necessity.

According to the OBR report presented today by Sir Alan Budd, compared to the March Budget, total managed expenditure is £2.8 billion lower while receipts are up £5.6 billion for 2010-11. This has contributed to the estimate of the current budget deficit falling from £124 billion at the Budget to £114 billion.

Meanwhile, reporting from the OBR’s press conference, Newsnight’s Paul Mason writes:

There is only a 0.3% of GDP difference (maybe 5bn) between Darling’s structural deficit forecast and Budd’s. This means there is no prima-facie ammo in the Budd Report for a significant tightening in order to eliminate “the bulk of the structural deficit”.

As Left Foot Forward showed last week, the coalition government plans – over the course of this Parliament – to cut income tax, employer national insurance, corporation tax, freeze council tax, and “recognise marriage in the tax system”. These are all discretionary decisions which will need to be paid for by additional tax increases or spending cuts above and beyond the £38 billion of spending cuts that Labour set out would be needed in its final Budget (Paragraph 2.57).

With the Government preparing a “climb down” on raising capital gains tax, there are growing suspicions that they will pay for their tax giveaways by raising VAT, which is urged by business, or cutting additional public services.

As you’re here, we have something to ask you. What we do here to deliver real news is more important than ever. But there’s a problem: we need readers like you to chip in to help us survive. We deliver progressive, independent media, that challenges the right’s hateful rhetoric. Together we can find the stories that get lost.

We’re not bankrolled by billionaire donors, but rely on readers chipping in whatever they can afford to protect our independence. What we do isn’t free, and we run on a shoestring. Can you help by chipping in as little as £1 a week to help us survive? Whatever you can donate, we’re so grateful - and we will ensure your money goes as far as possible to deliver hard-hitting news.

34 Responses to “No case to cut more than Labour”

  1. House Of Twits

    RT @leftfootfwd No case to cut more than Labour

  2. Shamik Das

    No case to cut more than Labour: reports @wdjstraw on @leftfootfwd

  3. Juderobinson

    RT @leftfootfwd: No case to cut more than Labour

  4. catherine jamieson

    RT @leftfootfwd: No case to cut more than Labour

  5. winston k moss

    RT @leftfootfwd: No case to cut more than Labour

Comments are closed.