Osborne's economic strategy remains self-defeating

The Chancellor is wrong to fund £5bn of extra capital spending by squeezing public services.

George Osborne's decision to increase capital spending by £5bn (to be announced in tomorrow's Autumn Statement) is a belated admission that, in times of stagnation, the state must intervene to stimulate growth. The delusion that the coalition's spending cuts would increase consumer confidence and produce a self-sustaining private-sector-led recovery has been abandoned after Osborne's "expansionary fiscal contraction" turned out to be, well, contractionary. Whisper it, but Keynesianism is back. The £5bn will be spent on "shovel-ready projects", including 100 new free schools and academies, roads, and science and technology programmes.

But rather than taking advantage of the UK's historically low bond yields to borrow for growth (as the IMF and the CBI, among others, have urged the government to do), Osborne will fund the move by squeezing current spending even harder. All government departments, except health, education and international development, will be forced to reduce their budgets by an extra one per cent in 2013-14 and a further two per cent in 2014/15. By reducing demand and leading to thousands of extra job losses, the new cuts will limit the effectiveness of the £5bn stimulus, which, in itself, is inadequate. The FT's economics editor Chris Giles suggests that "on generous assumptions it might increase growth in one year by 0.1 per cent."

Though Osborne will claim otherwise tomorrow, this isn't what's needed to make a real difference at this stage.

George Osborne during a visit to the offices of HM Revenue & Customs. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

New Statesman
Show Hide image

Quiz: Can you identify fake news?

The furore around "fake" news shows no sign of abating. Can you spot what's real and what's not?

Hillary Clinton has spoken out today to warn about the fake news epidemic sweeping the world. Clinton went as far as to say that "lives are at risk" from fake news, the day after Pope Francis compared reading fake news to eating poop. (Side note: with real news like that, who needs the fake stuff?)

The sweeping distrust in fake news has caused some confusion, however, as many are unsure about how to actually tell the reals and the fakes apart. Short from seeing whether the logo will scratch off and asking the man from the market where he got it from, how can you really identify fake news? Take our test to see whether you have all the answers.

 

 

In all seriousness, many claim that identifying fake news is a simple matter of checking the source and disbelieving anything "too good to be true". Unfortunately, however, fake news outlets post real stories too, and real news outlets often slip up and publish the fakes. Use fact-checking websites like Snopes to really get to the bottom of a story, and always do a quick Google before you share anything. 

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.