ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT OF THE PUBLIC FINANCES

George Osborne’s plans delivered within his Autumn Statement last week lays bare the neoconservative strategy. Hidden amid the plethora of all the other numbers, the Treasury has announced a further year of austerity spending for 2018/19 – the ninth in a row. This Autumn Statement, however, was different, because it was the first where the Chancellor has called for a permanent, structural shrinking of the state.

Since 2009, the Treasury has sought to return the public finances to roughly where they were before the crash. Now, though, out of political choice, Mr Osborne is proposing that government spending should fall, as a share of national income, to far below its pre-crisis level.

In 2007, public expenditure equated to 40.5 per cent of national income. It increased rapidly to 47 per cent by 2009, mainly due to the economy shrinking, rather than rising spending. Since then, the Treasury has been clawing its way back towards Labour’s level of spending, and in March Mr Osborne’s plan was to reach the pre-crisis benchmark by 2017. Within this year’s Autumn Statement everything has changed – without any announcement, the Chancellor pencilled in a cut of 38 per cent of GDP for 2018.

Historically, when public spending slipped this low it was because the economy was extremely buoyant. In the late 1990s, for instance, Tony Blair’s government were caught off guard, with inherited Conservative spending plans and a booming economy. This time is different; despite a recovery that is helping to move the country out of recession the economic projections are far from impressive, and the strain of shrinking the state is to be borne solely by spending restraint.

Examining the detail will reveal that, in 2016 and 2017, the plan is ‘more of the same’ – total real spending is to fall at a similar pace to that from 2011 to 2015. Then, on top of seven years of cuts, spending in 2018 is to be frozen, even though economic growth is predicted to be 2.7 per cent.

If implemented, there is only one conclusion that may be drawn – the end of public services as we know them. By 2018 spending on services would be almost 20 per cent lower, and that’s on a comparison with today. And if the government remains adamant in protecting areas like the NHS, international development and schools, other government departments would face cuts of up to 40 per cent. In reality, this will mean many services spending less than half what they did a decade previously. The only option in limiting this damage would be more severe cuts to welfare. It is difficult not seeing pensioner benefits, which form the bulk of welfare spending, not being affected in some shape or form.

A shrinking state. Graphical variations between the Autumn Statement, the March Budget and proposals put forward by the Fabian Society post-2015.

The Treasury plan is wilfully counterproductive in terms of the government’s proposals for public investment. Following the Autumn Statement, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) revised down its expectations for business investment as a driver of recovery, but this suggests by implication that public investment is needed more than ever. Yet, for two years after the election it is to be flat in real terms. This can only amount to a further decline (as a share of GDP), and will become a further restraint on growth.

In October, the Fabian Society Commission proposed another way with its Future Spending Choices. It argued for a significant boost to public investment and for overall spending to rise after 2015 by one per cent a year for two years. This, the Commission says, would take spending as a share of national income to the pre-crash benchmark of around 41 per cent of GDP. After that, expenditure should return to trend and match annual rises in GDP.

The Fabian Society’s proposed spending path is compatible with sustainable public finances but diverges hugely from the government’s spending plans. By 2018, there would be almost £40bn more to spend, enough to turn the Chancellor’s massive cuts to public services into a freeze. This still assumes tough spending decisions to be made, but public service meltdown could be avoided. Mr Osborne’s plans should thus not be interpreted as inevitable or even necessary.

Labour should take the opportunity in delivering post-2015 plans. They should define an alternative, so that the Conservatives do not set the terms of the fiscal debate as the general election draws near.

George Osborne’s ideological cuts are just one route to sound public finances, but many others are also available. Many will say that we do not need to deliberately shrink the size of the state to such levels that the government now seeks. Overshooting pre-crisis spending should not be the objective of any future Labour government.