George Osborne admitted today that his cuts would be 40% greater than Labour's plans. But he was let off the hook by Evan Davies on his use of Budget numbers and "fairness" claims.
George Osborne this morning admitted that his approach to deficit reduction would result in spending cuts that were nearly half as big again as those planned by the previous Labour government. Speaking on the Today programme ahead of a speech to City analysts, he got an easy ride on his use of Budget numbers and on whether the Budget had been “fair”.
George Osborne told the BBC’s Evan Davies that:
“Of the £61bn spending cuts I have to make, £44bn were planned by Labour.”
The difference – £17 billion – amounts to a 40 per cent increase in the level of cuts. But the figures are different from those presented in either Alistair Darling’s March Budget or Osborne’s own emergency Budget in June. After the interview, Evan Davies told Left Foot Forward that, “I was bemused by that.. but didn’t have the detail to hand.”
Labour’s final Budget in March announced plans to cut public spending by £38 billion by 2013-14. The Coalition’s emergency Budget had slightly different figures. Table 1.1 compared the Coalition’s planned spending cuts of £63 billion by 2013-14 to £39 billion planned by Alistair Darling – an increase of 62 per cent. Although Labour has avoided setting out how it would make these cuts, if the party were in power its plans could have avoided all of George Osborne’s cuts to child benefit, child tax credits, and housing benefit as well as the stealth reductions in the value of public service pensions and benefits with £14 billion to spare.
Mr Osborne went on to claim that his plans were “fundamentally progressive and fair” – a demonstrably false statement. The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies said the, “likely … overall impact of [the emergency Budget] was regressive”. In a briefing paper for the TUC and Unison, Tim Horton and Howard Reed showed that the impact of the Coalition’s spending cuts was “deeply regressive … All households are hit considerably, but the poorest households are hit the hardest.” Analysis by Left Foot Forward showed that deprived inner-City areas will be hit the hardest by cuts to the budgets of local government.
25 Responses to “Osborne let off the hook on spending cuts”
yorkierosie
RT @leftfootfwd: Osborne let off the hook on spending cuts http://bit.ly/aXzx9f
Ash
I still think Labour under a new leader need to have a clear story to tell about what cuts *should* be made; it’s just not a credible medium-term strategy to agree in principle that 65% (ish) of the cuts Osborne makes are necessary but then condemn 100% of those cuts.
Will Straw
Guido – Could, not would. I set out only my own priorities. The next leader has, in my view, to set out what they would do to reduce the deficit. Labour lacks credibility without setting out its own priorities but it doesnt diminish the responsibility of groups/blogs like LFF to point out the absurdity of Osborne’s plans.
John – Utter madness. The Bank of England outlined last week how the Budget was negatively affecting growth. Some City analysts are already predicting that growth will be flat at the end of this year and possibly negative. Any more cutting would almost certainly put Britain into a double dip recession.
Robert – £24bn in cuts by the Treasury’s own figures. And, hopefully, a very different approach to on whom the axe will fall.
Ash – as per my reply to Guido, I completely agree. There should have been a comprehensive spending review before the election.
Thomas Gillespie
RT @leftfootfwd: Osborne let off the hook on spending cuts http://bit.ly/aXzx9f
Sara (Teresa) Brooks
RT @leftfootfwd: Osborne let off the hook on spending cuts http://bit.ly/aXzx9f