IFS urges Osborne to develop a Plan B

The respected Institute for Fiscal Studies think tank today urged George Osborne to prepare a 'Plan B' for fiscal consolidation in case growth prospects deteriorate.

The respected Institute for Fiscal Studies think tank today urged George Osborne to prepare a ‘Plan B’ for fiscal consolidation in case growth prospects deteriorate. The Chancellor told the BBC Politics Show on Sunday that there was no alternative to his planned cuts.

Early headlines from the Telegraph, Standard, and Guardian have reproduced the IFS’ press release which outlined that there was “little room for Budget easing”. But as reported on Sky, the small print of the document and discussion at the event clearly called for the development of a Plan B in the medium term.

The Summary of the Green Budget document says:

“It may therefore make sense for the government to consider ways of reducing the pace of fiscal consolidation should demand conditions deteriorate significantly – enabling it to ‘trim the sails’ again in the same manner that it did so last November.”

Chapter 5 of the Green Budget includes a graph (reproduced below) showing how different growth scenarios would impact the budget balance forecasts. On both the central and pessimistic case developed by Barclays for the IFS, growth would come in lower than anticipated by the OBR with a knock on effect on the deficit.


The report says:

“Although there may be no need to implement an alternative short- or medium-term plan at this stage, the Chancellor would be best advised to consider how he would respond to a changing – and, in particular, a worsening – outlook for the economy, the public finances or the quality and quantity of public services being enjoyed. Having such alternative plans to hand could prove useful.”

Responding to a question from the Financial Times’ Chris Giles, Michael Dicks of Barclays Wealth said:

“[The Chancellor] shouldn’t commit to cuts in stone. If growth was weaker than expected [the Government should] cut more slowly.”

While Carl Emmerson of the IFS added:

“It would be unlikely that the optimal spending decision in October 2010 would be optimal in 2012.”

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.

18 Responses to “IFS urges Osborne to develop a Plan B”

  1. Mehdi Hasan

    RT @leftfootfwd: IFS urges Osborne to develop a Plan B: http://bit.ly/eQvLdB reports @wdjstraw

  2. Jenni Willows

    RT @leftfootfwd: IFS urges Osborne to develop a Plan B: http://bit.ly/eQvLdB reports @wdjstraw

  3. Emma Jackson Stuart

    RT @leftfootfwd IFS urges Osborne to develop a Plan B: http://bit.ly/eQvLdB > in the words of @willself: "what's the plan, guys?"!

  4. Sean

    So basically the graph shows that after 16 years of uninterrupted economic growth, Labour decided to borrow money over a 6 year period (before the crash) to spend? If you run a poor budget before the crash no wonder the deficit blew out after the crash.

  5. Mark Stevo

    I don’t know why you’re so dismissive of the IFS’s statement that there’s limited wiggle room to relax the budget. The IFS are saying that if conditions weaken below what they’re currently projecting (which to remind you is a growth of a little less than 2%).

    This is quite different from what I understand your position to be, which is an immediate relaxation of the budget irrespective of conditions.

    Am I right in concluding that you disagree with the IFS on this point? It seems like you’re cherry-living the bits you like and downplaying or ignoring the bits you don’t.

Comments are closed.