Osborne, it's time for Plan B

A strategy rethink is in order.

Although the reporting cycle is a little unusual – the chancellor George Osborne only made his interim report in December – the parallels with, and potential lessons from, his private sector peers are interesting. Since he took the job (and it was a pretty senior post for a first board position) this young CFO has been struggling to explain exactly how UK Plc would achieve the more difficult half of balancing the books, i.e. growing revenues.

Somewhat predictably, the focus has therefore been on the slightly easier side of the equation, i.e. cutting costs. Thus far this approach seems to have done enough to appease watching investors and analysts. Partly due to problems being experienced by most of its major competitors, and the resulting lack of alternatives, UK Plc has been able to hang on to its investment and top credit rating. But the tough market conditions don’t appear to be easing and the outlook remains bleak. Thus Osborne, like most CFOs, will have to work extra hard to convince those watching that he has a credible plan to get UK PLC’s finances back on track.

Having already had to admit he will miss several key targets he set himself for getting the financial house in order, Osborne now needs to rethink his strategy for achieving growth. As most experienced CFOs would confirm, it is not possible to cut your way out of a slump. A sudden bout of reckless spending would be equally disastrous. But when results keep going against you (and last week’s ONS figures, showing we’re heading for a likely triple dip recession were not what Osborne projected) then it’s time to acknowledge the current strategy needs a rethink.

The rest of this article can be read on economia

Photograph: Getty Images

Richard Cree is the Editor of Economia.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Forget gaining £350m a week, Brexit would cost the UK £300m a week

Figures from the government's own Office for Budget Responsibility reveal the negative economic impact Brexit would have. 

Even now, there are some who persist in claiming that Boris Johnson's use of the £350m a week figure was accurate. The UK's gross, as opposed to net EU contribution, is precisely this large, they say. Yet this ignores that Britain's annual rebate (which reduced its overall 2016 contribution to £252m a week) is not "returned" by Brussels but, rather, never leaves Britain to begin with. 

Then there is the £4.1bn that the government received from the EU in public funding, and the £1.5bn allocated directly to British organisations. Fine, the Leavers say, the latter could be better managed by the UK after Brexit (with more for the NHS and less for agriculture).

But this entire discussion ignores that EU withdrawal is set to leave the UK with less, rather than more, to spend. As Carl Emmerson, the deputy director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, notes in a letter in today's Times: "The bigger picture is that the forecast health of the public finances was downgraded by £15bn per year - or almost £300m per week - as a direct result of the Brexit vote. Not only will we not regain control of £350m weekly as a result of Brexit, we are likely to make a net fiscal loss from it. Those are the numbers and forecasts which the government has adopted. It is perhaps surprising that members of the government are suggesting rather different figures."

The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts, to which Emmerson refers, are shown below (the £15bn figure appearing in the 2020/21 column).

Some on the right contend that a blitz of tax cuts and deregulation following Brexit would unleash  higher growth. But aside from the deleterious economic and social consequences that could result, there is, as I noted yesterday, no majority in parliament or in the country for this course. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.