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

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.