The Tories are considering cuts to the NHS and overseas aid

Osborne may use next year's Spending Review to remove the ring-fence on health and international development spending.

Ahead of next year's expected spending review (which would cover spending from 2015-2017), the Guardian's Patrick Wintour reports that the Tories are unsure whether they will be able to repeat their 2010 pledge to ring-fence spending on health and international development.

Given the deteriorating fiscal situation, this is no surprise. When George Osborne delivered his first Budget in June 2010, the newly-established Office for the Budget Responsibility forecast that the deficit would fall from £154.7bn (11%) in 2010 to £37bn (2.1%) in 2015. But the failure of Osborne's strategy to deliver growth (indeed, its success in delivering recession) means that, according to the latest independent forecasts, it will now stand at £96.1bn (5.8%).

In response, the Chancellor has already been forced to extend his austerity programme by two years to 2017 (going further, David Cameron has suggested he may need an extra five) and has declared his intention to seek another £10bn of welfare cuts (the reason he tried - and failed - to remove Iain Duncan Smith, who is opposed to further cuts, from his post in this week's reshuffle). With the fiscal situation likely to worsen further as growth remains anaemic or non-existent (the OECD today predicted that the UK economy would shrink by 0.7% this year, a worse peformance than any G7 country except Italy), Osborne is on the hunt for further savings.

Few Tory MPs would weep at the demise of the NHS/overseas aid ring-fence (many were outraged that defence spending was cut by 7.5%, while overseas aid received a 35% real-terms increase) but such a decision would inflict further damage on Cameron's brand. Against this, the Tories believe that a 2013 spending review would cause trouble for Labour by forcing it to come clean about where it would cut. As Treasury select committee chairman Andrew Tyries has said: "Labour would have to respond. Having the coalition parties committed to the same spending path halfway into the next Parliament makes it very difficult for Labour at the election."

The biggest question facing Balls and Miliband remains whether to accept the Tories' spending plans, as Labour did in 1997, or offer a distinct alternative.

George Osborne arrives at Downing Street yesterday for the first cabinet meeting since the reshuffle. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

The economics of outrage: Why you haven't seen the end of Katie Hopkins

Her distasteful tweet may have cost her a job at LBC, but this isn't the last we've seen of Britain's biggest troll. 

Another atrocity, other surge of grief and fear, and there like clockwork was the UK’s biggest troll. Hours after the explosion at the Manchester Arena that killed 22 mostly young and female concert goers, Katie Hopkins weighed in with a very on-brand tweet calling for a “final solution” to the complex issue of terrorism.

She quickly deleted it, replacing the offending phrase with the words “true solution”, but did not tone down the essentially fascist message. Few thought it had been an innocent mistake on the part of someone unaware of the historical connotations of those two words.  And no matter how many urged their fellow web users not to give Hopkins the attention she craved, it still sparked angry tweets, condemnatory news articles and even reports to the police.

Hopkins has lost her presenting job at LBC radio, but she is yet to lose her column at Mail Online, and it’s quite likely she won’t.

Mail Online and its print counterpart The Daily Mail have regularly shown they are prepared to go down the deliberately divisive path Hopkins was signposting. But even if the site's managing editor Martin Clarke was secretly a liberal sandal-wearer, there are also very good economic reasons for Mail Online to stick with her. The extreme and outrageous is great at gaining attention, and attention is what makes money for Mail Online.

It is ironic that Hopkins’s career was initially helped by TV’s attempts to provide balance. Producers could rely on her to provide a counterweight to even the most committed and rational bleeding-heart liberal.

As Patrick Smith, a former media specialist who is currently a senior reporter at BuzzFeed News points out: “It’s very difficult for producers who are legally bound to be balanced, they will sometimes literally have lawyers in the room.”

“That in a way is why some people who are skirting very close or beyond the bounds of taste and decency get on air.”

But while TV may have made Hopkins, it is online where her extreme views perform best.  As digital publishers have learned, the best way to get the shares, clicks and page views that make them money is to provoke an emotional response. And there are few things as good at provoking an emotional response as extreme and outrageous political views.

And in many ways it doesn’t matter whether that response is negative or positive. Those who complain about what Hopkins says are also the ones who draw attention to it – many will read what she writes in order to know exactly why they should hate her.

Of course using outrageous views as a sales tactic is not confined to the web – The Daily Mail prints columns by Sarah Vine for a reason - but the risks of pushing the boundaries of taste and decency are greater in a linear, analogue world. Cancelling a newspaper subscription or changing radio station is a simpler and often longer-lasting act than pledging to never click on a tempting link on Twitter or Facebook. LBC may have had far more to lose from sticking with Hopkins than Mail Online does, and much less to gain. Someone prepared to say what Hopkins says will not be out of work for long. 

0800 7318496