Here’s why Osborne will have to raise taxes

Get ready for tax rises as “efficiency savings” of £35bn fail to materialise.

With the coalition still planning to cut all non-ring-fenced departments (that's everything except Health and International Development) by 25 per cent, this morning's report by the National Audit Office should serve as a wake-up call.

First, it found that Whitehall departments are almost certain to fail to make the £35bn of efficiency savings promised by the last Labour government back in 2007.

Second, it found that, of the £10.8bn in savings already reported by the government, many are unsustainable. After reviewing around £2.8bn of the total, it found that only 38 per cent "represented sustainable savings", with 44 per cent rated as "uncertain" and 18 per cent as non-existent.

These figures are highly significant because the Conservatives' pledge to cancel the planned rise in National Insurance assumed not only that Whitehall would save £35bn, but that the Tories could save £12bn on top of this.

The government will undoubtedly portray this as an indictment of the Brown years but here's the rub: if Whitehall fails to cut spending by £35bn (around 3 per cent of departmental spending) how will it ever meet George Osborne's target of 25 per cent cuts?

The likelihood, as Michael Portillo, once chief secretary to the Treasury, has argued, is that it won't. Theoretical savings often fail to materialise in practice and the civil service is notoriously astute at protecting departmental budgets and evading cuts.

What this implies is more tax rises. Like Portillo, I am highly sceptical that Osborne will maintain his plan to reduce the deficit through a 77:23 ratio of spending cuts to tax rises. The coalition may be forced revert to something like the 50:50 split adopted by Kenneth Clarke during the last major period of fiscal retrenchment in the 1990s.

Still, one veteran minister has apparently had no trouble identifying cuts of 40 per cent. Here's what he told Benedict Brogan:

Oh, that was easy. I just threw in plenty of programmes for children and vulnerable people. That should give them something to think about. I wasn't born yesterday. If that's how they want to play this game . . .

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Supreme Court Article 50 winner demands white paper on Brexit

The Supreme Court ruled Parliament must be consulted before triggering Article 50. Grahame Pigney, of the People's Challenge, plans to build on the victory. 

A crowd-funded campaign that has forced the government to consult Parliament on Article 50 is now calling for a white paper on Brexit.

The People's Challenge worked alongside Gina Miller and other interested parties to force the government to back down over its plan to trigger Article 50 without prior parliamentary approval. 

On Tuesday morning, the Supreme Court ruled 8-3 that the government must first be authorised by an act of Parliament.

Grahame Pigney, the founder of the campaign, said: "It is absolutely great we have now got Parliament back in control, rather than decisions taken in some secret room in Whitehall.

"If this had been overturned it would have taken us back to 1687, before the Bill of Rights."

Pigney, whose campaign has raised more than £100,000, is now plannign a second campaign. He said: "The first step should be for a white paper to be brought before Parliament for debate." The demand has also been made by the Exiting the European Union select committee

The "Second People's Challenge" aims to pool legal knowledge with like-minded campaigners and protect MPs "against bullying and populist rhetoric". 

The white paper should state "what the Brexit objectives are, how (factually) they would benefit the UK, and what must happen if they are not achieved". 

The campaign will also aim to fund a Europe-facing charm offensive, with "a major effort" to ensure politicians in EU countries understand that public opinion is "not universally in favour of ‘Brexit at any price’".

Pigney, like Miller, has always maintained that he is motivated by the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, rather than a bid to stop Brexit per se.

In an interview with The Staggers, he said: "One of the things that has characterised this government is they want to keep everything secret.”

Julia Rampen is the editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog. She was previously deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.