George Osborne stands on the brink of failing one of his golden fiscal rules

Autumn Statement wishlist.

With borrowing up, growth negligible for the last two years and rising under-employment highlighting the fragility of the labour market, the economic outlook facing the Chancellor is bleak.

He stands on the brink of failing one of his golden fiscal rules – having debt fall as a proportion of GDP by 2015. The narrative up to now has been whether he can still meet this rule. But this ignores the far bigger issue that it is one of the main causes of the UK’s economic problems.

So rather than fudge the figures to appease the deficit hawks on his backbenches, the Chancellor should abandon his beloved fiscal target that he’s going to miss anyway.

This would mean no longer needing to make another £10bn raid on the welfare budget. Freezing and cutting benefits will life harder for families living – and working – in poverty. And the cuts will not help a single person back into work.

Most importantly, abandoning his self-defeating austerity targets will allow the Chancellor to start again with a fresh plan for growth.

This new plan should include a new State Investment Bank that can help fill the credit void left by our failing banking sector. The Chancellor could also reassert the government’s green credentials by giving the Green Investment Bank powers to borrow.

Capital spending cuts should be cancelled and replaced by more infrastructure investment. Modernising our transport network and energy needs can help deliver high-quality skilled jobs in the short-term and provide longer-term economic gains.

The Chancellor says that reducing the deficit is the biggest challenge the government faces. It is not. Preventing a lost decade of economic stagnation is our biggest challenge. And unless we tackle this by starting a new plan focused on generating jobs and growth we will never get to grips with the public finances.

Frances O’Grady is the TUC General Secretary Designate.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

There are risks as well as opportunities ahead for George Osborne

The Chancellor is in a tight spot, but expect his political wiles to be on full display, says Spencer Thompson.

The most significant fiscal event of this parliament will take place in late November, when the Chancellor presents the spending review setting out his plans for funding government departments over the next four years. This week, across Whitehall and up and down the country, ministers, lobbyists, advocacy groups and town halls are busily finalising their pitches ahead of Friday’s deadline for submissions to the review

It is difficult to overstate the challenge faced by the Chancellor. Under his current spending forecast and planned protections for the NHS, schools, defence and international aid spending, other areas of government will need to be cut by 16.4 per cent in real terms between 2015/16 and 2019/20. Focusing on services spending outside of protected areas, the cumulative cut will reach 26.5 per cent. Despite this, the Chancellor nonetheless has significant room for manoeuvre.

Firstly, under plans unveiled at the budget, the government intends to expand capital investment significantly in both 2018-19 and 2019-20. Over the last parliament capital spending was cut by around a quarter, but between now and 2019-20 it will grow by almost 20 per cent. How this growth in spending should be distributed across departments and between investment projects should be at the heart of the spending review.

In a paper published on Monday, we highlighted three urgent priorities for any additional capital spending: re-balancing transport investment away from London and the greater South East towards the North of England, a £2bn per year boost in public spending on housebuilding, and £1bn of extra investment per year in energy efficiency improvements for fuel-poor households.

Secondly, despite the tough fiscal environment, the Chancellor has the scope to fund a range of areas of policy in dire need of extra resources. These include social care, where rising costs at a time of falling resources are set to generate a severe funding squeeze for local government, 16-19 education, where many 6th-form and FE colleges are at risk of great financial difficulty, and funding a guaranteed paid job for young people in long-term unemployment. Our paper suggests a range of options for how to put these and other areas of policy on a sustainable funding footing.

There is a political angle to this as well. The Conservatives are keen to be seen as a party representing all working people, as shown by the "blue-collar Conservatism" agenda. In addition, the spending review offers the Conservative party the opportunity to return to ‘Compassionate Conservatism’ as a going concern.  If they are truly serious about being seen in this light, this should be reflected in a social investment agenda pursued through the spending review that promotes employment and secures a future for public services outside the NHS and schools.

This will come at a cost, however. In our paper, we show how the Chancellor could fund our package of proposed policies without increasing the pain on other areas of government, while remaining consistent with the government’s fiscal rules that require him to reach a surplus on overall government borrowing by 2019-20. We do not agree that the Government needs to reach a surplus in that year. But given this target wont be scrapped ahead of the spending review, we suggest that he should target a slightly lower surplus in 2019/20 of £7bn, with the deficit the year before being £2bn higher. In addition, we propose several revenue-raising measures in line with recent government tax policy that together would unlock an additional £5bn of resource for government departments.

Make no mistake, this will be a tough settlement for government departments and for public services. But the Chancellor does have a range of options open as he plans the upcoming spending review. Expect his reputation as a highly political Chancellor to be on full display.

Spencer Thompson is economic analyst at IPPR