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. 

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Who will win in Stoke-on-Trent?

Labour are the favourites, but they could fall victim to a shock in the Midlands constituency.  

The resignation of Tristram Hunt as MP for Stoke-on-Central has triggered a by-election in the safe Labour seat of Stoke on Trent Central. That had Westminster speculating about the possibility of a victory for Ukip, which only intensified once Paul Nuttall, the party’s leader, was installed as the candidate.

If Nuttall’s message that the Labour Party has lost touch with its small-town and post-industrial heartlands is going to pay dividends at the ballot box, there can hardly be a better set of circumstances than this: the sitting MP has quit to take up a well-paid job in London, and although  the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs voted to block Brexit, the well-advertised divisions in that party over the vote should help Ukip.

But Labour started with a solid lead – it is always more useful to talk about percentages, not raw vote totals – of 16 points in 2015, with the two parties of the right effectively tied in second and third place. Just 33 votes separated Ukip in second from the third-placed Conservatives.

There was a possible – but narrow – path to victory for Ukip that involved swallowing up the Conservative vote, while Labour shed votes in three directions: to the Liberal Democrats, to Ukip, and to abstention.

But as I wrote at the start of the contest, Ukip were, in my view, overwritten in their chances of winning the seat. We talk a lot about Labour’s problem appealing to “aspirational” voters in Westminster, but less covered, and equally important, is Ukip’s aspiration problem.

For some people, a vote for Ukip is effectively a declaration that you live in a dump. You can have an interesting debate about whether it was particularly sympathetic of Ken Clarke to brand that party’s voters as “elderly male people who have had disappointing lives”, but that view is not just confined to pro-European Conservatives. A great number of people, in Stoke and elsewhere, who are sympathetic to Ukip’s positions on immigration, international development and the European Union also think that voting Ukip is for losers.

That always made making inroads into the Conservative vote harder than it looks. At the risk of looking very, very foolish in six days time, I found it difficult to imagine why Tory voters in Hanley would take the risk of voting Ukip. As I wrote when Nuttall announced his candidacy, the Conservatives were, in my view, a bigger threat to Labour than Ukip.

Under Theresa May, almost every move the party has made has been designed around making inroads into the Ukip vote and that part of the Labour vote that is sympathetic to Ukip. If the polls are to be believed, she’s succeeding nationally, though even on current polling, the Conservatives wouldn’t have enough to take Stoke on Trent Central.

Now Theresa May has made a visit to the constituency. Well, seeing as the government has a comfortable majority in the House of Commons, it’s not as if the Prime Minister needs to find time to visit the seat, particularly when there is another, easier battle down the road in the shape of the West Midlands mayoral election.

But one thing is certain: the Conservatives wouldn’t be sending May down if they thought that they were going to do worse than they did in 2015.

Parties can be wrong of course. The Conservatives knew that they had found a vulnerable spot in the last election as far as a Labour deal with the SNP was concerned. They thought that vulnerable spot was worth 15 to 20 seats. They gained 27 from the Liberal Democrats and a further eight from Labour.  Labour knew they would underperform public expectations and thought they’d end up with around 260 to 280 seats. They ended up with 232.

Nevertheless, Theresa May wouldn’t be coming down to Stoke if CCHQ thought that four days later, her party was going to finish fourth. And if the Conservatives don’t collapse, anyone betting on Ukip is liable to lose their shirt. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.