The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Osborne's cuts get even bigger

Spending on public services will now be cut by 16.2 per cent over seven years.

By George Eaton Published 30 November 2011 15:13

Should you ever hear anyone suggest that the coaliton's cuts are not harsh, savage or draconian but are in fact "soft", "mild" and "insignificant", just show them this graph. At its lunchtime briefing on George Osborne's autumn statement, the Institute for Fiscal Studies confirmed that the coalition's cuts are even larger. Spending on public services will now be reduced by 16.2 per cent over seven years. As IFS director Paul Johnson commented in his opening remarks, "there has been no period like it in the last 60 years."

The largest cuts for 60 years

It's worth noting that the total level of cuts falls to 5.3 per cent if you take into account increased debt interest and higher spending on welfare benefits (both examples non-discretionary spending - spending required by law). But no one can now deny that public services are being cut at a rate that modern Britain has never experienced.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Spending Cuts

More from George Eaton

9 comments

Wed, 2011-11-30 15:55 — AndyPW

Yesterday may well be the day that decided the next election in Labour's favour. If the Libdems continue to support these cuts up to that election, then they will be wiped out.

Wed, 2011-11-30 16:20 — Andrew Davies (not verified)

I would say this is a good thing, as the size of the state is too large at the moment, consuming about half of GDP. This was a a result of Brown's belief in no bust after boom, massively increasing government jobs payed for by the City while continuing to erode our manufacturing base. However the cuts are just slowing the increasing rate of borrowing rather than a net reduction in spending, which is what is actually needed.

Wed, 2011-11-30 16:59 — Luddite (not verified)

AndyPW.. Stop kidding yourself, most don't want these cuts, but most fully understand the reasons why.

Wed, 2011-11-30 17:51 — matthew fox (not verified)

Lib Dems are finished Luddite, your kidding yourself the same way Clegg kids himself.

Osborne killed the recovery, you keep forgetting that fact.

Wed, 2011-11-30 18:08 — Luddite (not verified)

matthew: You really do need to grow-up.. or do you still believe in father christmas....

Wed, 2011-11-30 19:52 — matthew fox (not verified)

Criticism from someone who plays in sandpit, are you being ironic Luddite.

Please write an comment, you might get lucky and make sense for once.

Good Luck my simple minded friend.

Wed, 2011-11-30 21:05 — Luddite (not verified)

1% now why the fuck would i wish to be your friend? ironic!! fucking-hell... simple minded.. I'm listening to fleetwood mac's albatross 1969.. what a classic. sorry 1% what the fuck were you farting-on about..

Wed, 2011-11-30 22:03 — matthew fox (not verified)

Now now Luddite, your pretty limited vocabulary gets you in heaps and heaps of trouble.

Once you have calmed down, it would be best that you get out of your pram, and pick up the teddy you have just thrown.

I do feel really sorry for you Luddite, it can't be easy being a low-life.

Say hello to your pretend friends and family for me please.

Thu, 2011-12-01 12:27 — AndyPW

Andrew Davies - The deficit cannot be reduced by cuts alone. There also needs to be an increase in revenue. If this cannot be found from growth (and more cuts will hit growth again), then it must come from taxation. If the balance were more like Germany, then it would be much fairer. Before anyone screams "more tax will drive away business", that has not happened to Germany. Think about it.