Ed Balls declares: Labour’s cuts would have been too savage

Balls is right. Labour’s spending plans would have meant cuts of 20 per cent.

The coalition may be planning to cut all non-ring-fenced budgets by 25 per cent but it's worth remembering that Labour's cuts wouldn't have been much less savage. The Brown/Darling pledge to halve the deficit by 2014 would have seen cuts of 20 per cent to all non-protected departments.

So Ed Balls's declaration that this promise was a mistake deserves to be taken seriously. It's a more credible position than those campaigning against "Tory cuts" while refusing to accept that this means a slower pace of deficit reduction.

Balls told the BBC:

I always accepted collective responsibility but at the time, in 2009, I thought the pace of deficit reduction through spending cuts was not deliverable, I didn't think it could have been done.

This leaves open the possibility of a more even split between spending cuts and tax rises (George Osborne currently envisages a 77:23 ratio, Darling favoured 67:33). After all, during the last big fiscal tightening undertaken by a Conservative government, Ken Clarke split the pain 50:50 between tax rises and spending cuts. But Balls goes on to suggest that major cuts shouldn't take place until the economy has recovered fully:

We'll have to wait and see where we are once this huge risky experiment has been tried on our economy by the Conservatives and the Liberals. I can't start pre-empting how things will be in a few years' time but, you know, in my department I set out a third of a billion pounds of cuts, so obviously I'm not unafraid to make difficult decisions.

With confirmation today that growth in the first quarter of this year was just 0.3 per cent, the cautionary principle suggests that dramatic cuts should not take place until the economy is out of intensive care.

Balls, like some of his rivals for the Labour leadership, has belatedly adopted a clear line on the deficit. David Miliband has let it be known that he still supports the original pledge to halve the deifict by 2014, while Andy Burnham has come out against the coalition's absurd pledge to ring-fence the £110bn NHS budget.

I've heard remarkably little from either Ed Miliband or Diane Abbott on the deficit, but perhaps Balls's move will stir them into life.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

How will Theresa May meet her commitment to low-earners?

The Prime Minister will soon need to translate generalities into specifics. 

The curtailed Conservative leadership contest (which would not have finished yet) meant that Theresa May had little chance to define her agenda. But of the statements she has made since becoming prime minister, the most notable remains her commitment to lead a government "driven not by the interests of the privileged few, but by yours." 

When parliament returns on 5 September, and the autumn political season begins, May will need to translate this generality into specifics. The defining opportunity to do so will be the Autumn Statement. Originally intended by George Osborne to be a banal update of economic forecasts, this set-piece more often resembled a second Budget. Following the momentous Brexit vote, it certainly will under Philip Hammond. 

The first priority will be to demonstrate how the government will counter the threat of recession. Osborne's target of a budget surplus by 2020 has wisely been abandoned, granting the new Chancellor the freedom to invest more in infrastructure (though insiders make it clear not to expect a Keynesian splurge).

As well as stimulating growth, Hammond will need to reflect May's commitment to those "just managing" rather than the "privileged few". In her speech upon becoming prime minister, she vowed that "when it comes to taxes, we’ll prioritise not the wealthy, but you". A natural means of doing so would be to reduce VAT, which was increased to a record high of 20 per cent in 2010 and hits low-earners hardest. Others will look for the freeze on benefit increases to be lifted (with inflation forecast to rise to 3 per cent next year). May's team are keenly aware of the regressive effect of loose monetary policy (low interest rates and quantitative easing), which benefits wealthy asset-owners, and vow that those who lose out will be "compensated" elsewhere. 

A notable intervention has come from Andrew Tyrie, the Conservative chair of the Treasury select committee. He has called for the government to revive the publication of distributional analyses following Budgets and Autumn Statements, which was ended by George Osborne last year (having been introduced by the coalition in 2010). 

In a letter to Hammond, Tyrie wrote: "I would be grateful for an assurance that you will reinstate the distributional analysis of the effects of the budget and autumn statement measures on household incomes, recently and mistakenly discontinued by your predecessor." He added: "The new prime minister is committing her government to making Britain a country that works 'not for a privileged few, but for every one of us'. A high level of transparency about the effects of tax and welfare policy on households across the income distribution would seem to be a logical, perhaps essential starting point." 

Whether the government meets this demand will be an early test of how explicit it intends to be in reducing disparities. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.