Have there been spending cuts in Europe?

Short answer: Yes.

Via Tyler Cowen and the National Review comes this chart (click for big):

What it purports to show is that talk of "savage austerity" is overblown, that in fact no country has cut spending by more than a few billion, and that compared to 2002 levels (why 2002 is unclear) every country is spending considerably more.

Veronique de Rugy, who made the chart, does make passing reference to its major flaw, saying:

If this data were adjusted for inflation (which I would prefer but the data isn’t available) it would possibly show a decrease and certainly a flatter line for all countries.

Presenting such a chart using non-adjusted numbers is borderline dishonest. Flatlining spending in the UK, for instance, is a 3.5 per cent cut in real terms if there is 3.5 per cent inflation.

Tyler Cowen argues that using nominal figures is legitimate since nominal figures are what matter in the short run. If we accept that – or if we accept the easier-to-swallow response that an honest chart would show austerity but not "savage" austerity, or "large" spending cuts – then the next place to turn is to the receipts of spending.

What we find is, as Cowen puts it, a large increase in "automatic stabilizers", a Keynesian term which basically means that more people are claiming things like jobseeker's allowance, tax credits, and housing benefit as incomes go down and unemployment goes up.

These various expenditures are lumped together in the category of "mandatory spending". They are all expenses which governments promise to spend as needed, rather than from a fixed budget. If the number of unemployed people goes up, the amount spend on unemployment benefit goes up, and vice versa. Since the number of unemployed people has indeed gone up, we would expect mandatory spending to increase – as it has done.

In order for nominal spending to stay flat, as it has done, this increase in mandatory spending has to be offset by a decrease in "discretionary" spending – buying things that we actually want. As of the 2010 spending review, the Government was predicting a 26 per cent cut in the departmental spending limits by 2015, from 27 per cent of GDP to 20 per cent.

That is where the "large spending cuts" lie. But Cowen argues that:

That is not how people phrase it, rather they are complaining rather vociferously about "spending cuts," many of which are either imaginary or extremely small.

Perhaps Cowen is merely objecting to political rhetoric, in which case he is correct that "savage cuts to the discretionary budget which are partially offset by a growing mandatory budget" is more accurate, although less compelling, than "savage cuts". But if he is arguing that it is wrong to even claim that cuts exist, then he is being blinded by the same argument that has taken in Dan Hannan and Toby Young. As Daniel Elton puts it:

It is in effect saying "Yes, we realise that your Sure Start Centre has had to shut down, but because there’s a whole bunch of people now in the dole, there are no cuts"

Snip, snip: Have there been spending cuts? Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Show Hide image

Labour's Eurosceptics should steer clear of loaded language

Phrases such as "wholesale importation" leave the impression Labour will not speak for migrant workers.

Nothing reflects Britain’s division over Brexit than the Labour party. Do we want soft or hard Brexit? What do we prioritise? The fractures within the party’s ranks is a portrait of the divisions splintering the country.

Labour’s ambiguity over Brexit helped it in the general election in appealing to everyone. It convinced Remain voters that they could hold the Tories to account while promising the Leave voters that the referendum decision would be respected. But now clarity is needed. 

The Labour leadership seems to be angling for a hard Brexit, wishing to leave the single market and customs union on the grounds that this honours the wishes of the 52 per cent. Ironically, they are at odds with everyone in this situation, from the general public – who favour access to single market over immigration controls – to a poll in LabourList showing that 72 per cent of readers prioritised inclusion within the single market.

Jeremy Corbyn's lukewarm attitude to the EU is well documented. If the Labour Party are serious about their public ownership plans for the railways and energy, it’s likely they envision it being made difficult within the EU because of directives which create competition between the state and the private sector. There are unexplored alternatives to this, as seen in Germany and Italy where private companies are made and run the industries with the states acting as the major shareholders of the company. However it’s unlikely to see the hard left ever accepting this, given its disdain for both the private sector and the idea of it interacting with the state to deliver services.

But this is not all that should trouble progressives regarding the Labour leadership’s stance on Brexit. During a recent Andrew Marr programme in which he appeared on, Corbyn claimed that mass immigration had been used to denigrate the conditions for British workers, saying that there was a “wholesale importation” of workers from parts of Europe which would then undermine the rights of British workers. It’s an argument that has been regurgitated by British politicians consistently in recent years – but from the right, not the left.

The idea that migrants are taking British jobs and depressing wages does not hold up to evidence at all. The London School of Economics carried out a research which illustrated increases in migration from the EU did not result in depression of British wages. That’s not to suggest that wages have not stagnated, but rather the trend is linked to the financial crash in 2008, rather than migration. Corbyn’s defenders insist that there were no deliberate racist overtones in his argument, and that the villains are employers deliberately taking advantage of an easily exploited labour market. But the manner in which Corbyn framed his speech was worrying.

The reason for this is that Brexit has created an unbelievable sense of uncertainty, insecurity and fear amongst migrants. Their position in society is now being contested by politicians with different stakes in society to them. Xenophobic abuse – legitimised as an acceptable part of political discourse by Brexit – has been climbing swiftly. Immigrants are seen as threats to British jobs and that is a narrative consistently drummed out – not just since last year but for possibly the past decade.

This is not to say that Labour should not address how some employers might seek to cut costs by hiring foreign workers on a cheap rate. But phrases such as “wholesale importation” or even using the heavily demonised “mass migration” simply sketches the idea that Labour are swinging towards the hard Brexit voters, and in doing so leaving migrant workers to be defended by no one. If the intended idea was to castigate employers, it simply entrenched the idea of immigration as a problem. Rather than bringing British and migrant workers together, you know with that whole “workers of the world unite” idea, Corbyn’s framing of the argument keeps them pitted against each other.

If Brexit has shown us anything it’s that language matters in politics in how it transmits its message to people. Slogans such as “take back control” were attacks on multiculturalism and immigration, stoking white nationalism, even if the Leave campaign insisted it wasn’t about that. Likewise, Corbyn might insist it wasn’t about migrants, but his message sounded a lot like he was blaming freedom of movement for the suppression of wage growth in Britain.

Needless to say, Labour need a rethink on what kind of Brexit it pursues.