Osborne's missed opportunity to boost growth

The measures announced today will increase GDP by just £0.51 billion.

The Chancellor missed an opportunity to boost growth today with his Budget. Analysis by IPPR shows that an Alternative Budget could have increased the impact of GDP by a factor of five.

The Office of Budget Responsibility set out the fiscal multipliers of different forms of tax and spending changes in Table C8 of the 2010 Budget. Using these estimates it is possible to assess the impact of the Budget measures announced today that will take effect in 2013-14. Policy decisions for that year came to £1.71 billion.

The chart below shows that, taken as a whole, the measures announced by the Chancellor today to boost growth will increase GDP by just £0.51 billion. By contrast, alternative measures proposed by IPPR would increase GDP by £2.66 billion.

A

IPPR's Alternative Budget would include a mixture of tax cuts and spending increases paid for through Osborne's new tax avoidance and stamp duty proposals as well as an additional "mansion tax" of 1 per cent on properties worth more than £2 million. Our Alternative Budget would have the same fiscal effect as Osborne's. IPPR's preferred tax cut is an Obama-style cut in payroll taxes. Our original proposal, set out by Eric Beinhocker in last week's Times (£), was for a 2p cut to employee National Insurance Contributions to be paid for over six years. But in order to ensure that all costs are paid this year, we set out here a 1p tax cut at a cost of £2.75 billion.

Our second priority is a jobs guarantee for young people out of work for more than one year. This would cost £400 million and help address the scarring effects that long-term unemployment can cause, particularly for young people. There are currently over 1,042,000 young people aged 16-24 out of work the second highest since comparable records began in 1992, and a rise of 67,600 in the last year. There are now 253,000 young people who have been unemployed for more than a year, an increase of 24,900 over the last year. Osborne's Budget did nothing to address this.

Our final priority is increased infrastructure spending. The OBR's analysis shows that the most effective way to boost growth is to increase infrastructure spending. But the Government is planning to cut its capital spending by 29 per cent between 2010/11 and 2014/15, largely following the path set out by Labour when it was in power. This was, perhaps, Labour's biggest fiscal policy mistake. Not only does infrastructure spending boost growth, it has the advantage of adding to the UK's productive capacity over the longer-term. The money raised from the various tax increases allows for a £2.9 billion boost to infrastructure spending.

As the chart above shows, these three measures combined would increase GDP by £2.66 billion, which is close to five times the stimulative impact of Osborne's Budget. The Chancellor claimed today that his Budget was "growth-friendly". But analysis from the OBR, which he established, shows that it is no such thing.

Will Straw is Associate Director at IPPR

Will Straw was Director of Britain Stronger In Europe, the cross-party campaign to keep Britain in the European Union. 

Getty
Show Hide image

Donald Trump ushers in a new era of kakistocracy: government by the worst people

Trump will lead the whitest, most male cabinet in memory – a bizarre melange of the unqualified and the unhinged.

“What fills me with doubt and dismay is the degradation of the moral tone,” wrote the American poet James Russell Lowell in 1876, in a letter to his fellow poet Joel Benton. “Is it or is it not a result of democracy? Is ours a ‘government of the people by the people for the people’, or a kakistocracy rather, for the benefit of knaves at the cost of fools?”

Is there a better, more apt description of the incoming Trump administration than “kakistocracy”, which translates from the Greek literally as government by the worst people? The new US president, as Barack Obama remarked on the campaign trail, is “uniquely unqualified” to be commander-in-chief. There is no historical analogy for a President Trump. He combines in a single person some of the worst qualities of some of the worst US presidents: the Donald makes Nixon look honest, Clinton look chaste, Bush look smart.

Trump began his tenure as president-elect in November by agreeing to pay out $25m to settle fraud claims brought against the now defunct Trump University by dozens of former students; he began the new year being deposed as part of his lawsuit against a celebrity chef. On 10 January, the Federal Election Commission sent the Trump campaign a 250-page letter outlining a series of potentially illegal campaign contributions. A day later, the head of the non-partisan US Office of Government Ethics slammed Trump’s plan to step back from running his businesses as “meaningless from a conflict-of-interest perspective”.

It cannot be repeated often enough: none of this is normal. There is no precedent for such behaviour, and while kakistocracy may be a term unfamiliar to most of us, this is what it looks like. Forget 1876: be prepared for four years of epic misgovernance and brazen corruption. Despite claiming in his convention speech, “I alone can fix it,” the former reality TV star won’t be governing on his own. He will be in charge of the richest, whitest, most male cabinet in living memory; a bizarre melange of the unqualified and the unhinged.

There has been much discussion about the lack of experience of many of Trump’s appointees (think of the incoming secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, who has no background in diplomacy or foreign affairs) and their alleged bigotry (the Alabama senator Jeff Sessions, denied a role as a federal judge in the 1980s following claims of racial discrimination, is on course to be confirmed as attorney general). Yet what should equally worry the average American is that Trump has picked people who, in the words of the historian Meg Jacobs, “are downright hostile to the mission of the agency they are appointed to run”. With their new Republican president’s blessing, they want to roll back support for the poorest, most vulnerable members of society and don’t give a damn how much damage they do in the process.

Take Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general selected to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Pruitt describes himself on his LinkedIn page as “a leading advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda” and has claimed that the debate over climate change is “far from settled”.

The former neurosurgeon Ben Carson is Trump’s pick for housing and urban development, a department with a $49bn budget that helps low-income families own homes and pay the rent. Carson has no background in housing policy, is an anti-welfare ideologue and ruled himself out of a cabinet job shortly after the election. “Dr Carson feels he has no government experience,” his spokesman said at the time. “He’s never run a federal agency. The last thing he would want to do was take a position that could cripple the presidency.”

The fast-food mogul Andrew Puzder, who was tapped to run the department of labour, doesn’t like . . . well . . . labour. He prefers robots, telling Business Insider in March 2016: “They’re always polite . . . They never take a vacation, they never show up late, there’s never a slip-and-fall, or an age, sex or race discrimination case.”

The billionaire Republican donor Betsy DeVos, nominated to run the department of education, did not attend state school and neither did any of her four children. She has never been a teacher, has no background in education and is a champion of school vouchers and privatisation. To quote the education historian Diane Ravitch: “If confirmed, DeVos will be the first education secretary who is actively hostile to public education.”

The former Texas governor Rick Perry, nominated for the role of energy secretary by Trump, promised to abolish the department that he has been asked to run while trying to secure his party’s presidential nomination in 2011. Compare and contrast Perry, who has an undergraduate degree in animal science but failed a chemistry course in college, with his two predecessors under President Obama: Dr Ernest Moniz, the former head of MIT’s physics department, and Dr Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist from Berkeley. In many ways, Perry, who spent the latter half of 2016 as a contestant on Dancing with the Stars, is the ultimate kakistocratic appointment.

“Do Trump’s cabinet picks want to run the government – or dismantle it?” asked a headline in the Chicago Tribune in December. That’s one rather polite way of putting it. Another would be to note, as the Online Etymology Dictionary does, that kakistocracy comes from kakistos, the Greek word for “worst”, which is a superlative of kakos, or “bad”, which “is related to the general Indo-European word for ‘defecate’”.

Mehdi Hasan has rejoined the New Statesman as a contributing editor and will write a fortnightly column on US politics

Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.

This article first appeared in the 19 January 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The Trump era