How public spending rose under Thatcher

Thatcher squeezed public services but high unemployment meant spending rose by an average of 1.1% a year.

Despite the rhetoric of "rolling back the state", Margaret Thatcher was less successful in cutting public spending than many of her supporters (and opponents) like to believe. As the IFS graph below shows, real-terms spending rose in every year of her premiership apart from two. Only in 1985-86 and 1989-90 did spending fall, by 1.1 per cent in the former and 2.3 per cent in the latter. On average, it increased by 1.1 per cent a year. Under the coalition, by contrast, it is forecast to fall by an average of 0.4% a year in real terms (departmental spending is being cut by 11% but debt interest and high unemployment mean the total reduction is far smaller). 

While Thatcher squeezed spending on public services such as health and education, mass unemployment and the consequent increase in spending on benefits (which, unlike the current government, she allowed to rise with inflation) ensured that total expenditure remained high. 

But while spending generally kept pace with inflation, it did fall dramatically as a share of GDP. When Thatcher entered office, total expenditure stood at 45.1%. It was briefly reduced - to 44.6% - in her first year before rising every year until 1982-83 when it peaked at 48.1%. Spending then fell in every remaining year, totalling just 39.2% in 1989-90 after the economy grew by an average of 4.7% between  1984 and 1988. 

Spending under Thatcher as a percentage of GDP

  • 1979-80 44.6%
  • 1980-81 47%
  • 1981-82 47.7% 
  • 1982-83 48.1% 
  • 1983-84 47.8% 
  • 1984-85 47.5% 
  • 1985-86 45%
  • 1986-87 43.6%
  • 1987-88 41.6%
  • 1988-89 38.9% 
  • 1989-90 39.2% 

Source: HM Treasury

Public spending then rose under John Major, largely as a result of the 1991-92 recession, peaking at 43.7% of GDP in 1992-93. It later fell to a modern low of 34.5% under Labour in 2000-01 before rising in every subsequent year until it reached 47.7% in 2009-10 (the surge was largely a result of the recession, which saw spending rise by 3.2% compared with 2008-09). Osborne's axe will see it fall to 44% in 2014-15 and, if the election goes the Tories' way, to 40.5% in 2017-18. 

Margaret Thatcher making a speech, 22nd May 1980. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

The deafening killer - why noise will be the next great pollution scandal

A growing body of evidence shows that noise can have serious health impacts too. 

Our cities are being poisoned by a toxin that surrounds us day and night. It eats away at our brains, hurts our hearts, clutches at our sleep, and gnaws at the quality of our daily lives.

Hardly a silent killer, it gets short shrift compared to the well-publicised terrors of air pollution and sugars food. It is the dull, thumping, stultifying drum-beat of perpetual noise.

The score that accompanies city life is brutal and constant. It disrupts the everyday: The coffee break ruined by the screech of a line of double decker buses braking at the lights. The lawyer’s conference call broken by drilling as she makes her way to the office. The writer’s struggle to find a quiet corner to pen his latest article.

For city-dwellers, it’s all-consuming and impossible to avoid. Construction, traffic, the whirring of machinery, the neighbour’s stereo. Even at home, the beeps and buzzes made by washing machines, fridges, and phones all serve to distract and unsettle.

But the never-ending noisiness of city life is far more than a problem of aesthetics. A growing body of evidence shows that noise can have serious health impacts too. Recent studies have linked noise pollution to hearing loss, sleep deprivation, hypertension, heart disease, brain development, and even increased risk of dementia.

One research team compared families living on different stories of the same building in Manhattan to isolate the impact of noise on health and education. They found children in lower, noisier floors were worse at reading than their higher-up peers, an effect that was most pronounced for children who had lived in the building for longest.

Those studies have been replicated for the impact of aircraft noise with similar results. Not only does noise cause higher blood pressure and worsens quality of sleep, it also stymies pupils trying to concentrate in class.

As with many forms of pollution, the poorest are typically the hardest hit. The worst-off in any city often live by busy roads in poorly-insulated houses or flats, cheek by jowl with packed-in neighbours.

The US Department of Transport recently mapped road and aircraft noise across the United States. Predictably, the loudest areas overlapped with some of the country’s most deprived. Those included the south side of Atlanta and the lowest-income areas of LA and Seattle.

Yet as noise pollution grows in line with road and air traffic and rising urban density, public policy has turned a blind eye.

Council noise response services, formally a 24-hour defence against neighbourly disputes, have fallen victim to local government cuts. Decisions on airport expansion and road development pay scant regard to their audible impact. Political platforms remain silent on the loudest poison.

This is odd at a time when we have never had more tools at our disposal to deal with the issue. Electric Vehicles are practically noise-less, yet noise rarely features in the arguments for their adoption. Just replacing today’s bus fleet would transform city centres; doing the same for taxis and trucks would amount to a revolution.

Vehicles are just the start. Millions were spent on a programme of “Warm Homes”; what about “Quiet Homes”? How did we value the noise impact in the decision to build a third runway at Heathrow, and how do we compensate people now that it’s going ahead?

Construction is a major driver of decibels. Should builders compensate “noise victims” for over-drilling? Or could regulation push equipment manufacturers to find new ways to dampen the sound of their kit?

Of course, none of this addresses the noise pollution we impose on ourselves. The bars and clubs we choose to visit or the music we stick in our ears. Whether pumping dance tracks in spin classes or indie rock in trendy coffee shops, people’s desire to compensate for bad noise out there by playing louder noise in here is hard to control for.

The Clean Air Act of 1956 heralded a new era of city life, one where smog and grime gave way to clear skies and clearer lungs. That fight still goes on today.

But some day, we will turn our attention to our clogged-up airwaves. The decibels will fall. #Twitter will give way to twitter. And every now and again, as we step from our homes into city life, we may just hear the sweetest sound of all. Silence.

Adam Swersky is a councillor in Harrow and is cabinet member for finance. He writes in a personal capacity.