If the coalition is to meet its spending targets it will have to make further cuts to departmental budgets.
Public sector job losses could be significantly more than one million, according to a report published yesterday by the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
Due to the government’s failure to hit its savings targets, job losses in the public sector could be 300,000 higher by the end of 2017/18 than predicted, according to the IFS’s annual analysis of the government’s spending plans.
Within the IFS’s report, however, was also contained the prediction that, if the government continues to ring-fence the NHS budget, overseas aid and schools, spending cuts will need to be significantly more severe if the coalition is to meet the targets of its fiscal consolidation plan.
As things stand, just to keep his current savings plan on track, George Osborne will need to make much larger cuts to departmental budgets than he originally intended.
As we can see from the graphs below, the bar on the left represents what the government intends to cut while the bar on the right represents what the government will need to cut unless it reconsiders its policy of ring-fencing select budgets or increases government revenue through tax rises.
As the report phrases it:
“If such further cuts to departmental spending are not possible without a decline in the quality or quantity of public services that is unacceptable to politicians or to voters, then higher borrowing, further tax increases or social security spending cuts – perhaps after the next general election – must be on the cards.”
132 Responses to “More spending cuts on the way if coalition is to meet savings targets”
LB
It’s the state pensions that’s been embezzeled. Since no doubt that you’re living the life of Riley on the proceeds, as you get your cash from the state, its not surprising you want a distraction.
That’s why you’re so keen on screwing other people out of cash, because when they can’t pay its game over for you.
PS. The other day, I notice I’ve gone from being a 1% in your view to a 0.1%. If only. If only. I don’t even make the 1%.
Newsbot9
Yes yes, you keep claiming that paying state pensions out of current revenue can’t be done, despite the fact it’s intended way they work. You simply oppose pensions, as you’ve said many times, and are trying to crash the economy to wipe out the middle class.
You keep on mixing up my and your job, which you don’t do of course.
And I see. 0.001%. Keep it up! Hiding your assets offshore does not mean they don’t exist. Accusing me of being a whore isn’t helping your case either.
Absolutely_Passionate
@Newsbot9:disqus
“start with the NHS and schools” ?
No, we don’t need to start with the NHS and schools.
We could start with a cull on local authority chief execs earning north of 100k.
As I said, there’s no shortage of dead wood to choose from in the public sector.
Newsbot9
Ah right, don’t need local authorities in your plans. Old people can look after themselves. PLENTY of “deadwood”, who only serve the 99%, not your 1%.
How dare skilled people don’t work to shaft others, but for their benefit. Can’t be allowed!
Absolutely_Passionate
@Newsbot9
Don’t get carried away, I’m talking about cutting the dead wood, not digging up the tree roots, and I never mentioned JSA at all.