Osborne rules out further welfare cuts and tax rises as he targets Whitehall

The Chancellor reveals that he has already secured agreement from seven departments to cuts of up to 10 per cent and makes it clear that he's after more.

After reports at the weekend that he is struggling to secure agreement from cabinet ministers to any cuts in next month's Spending Review, George Osborne has taken the unusual step of touring the studios to reveal the progress he's made so far. On ITV's Daybreak, he announced that seven departments had "agreed provisionally" to cuts of up to 10 per cent, mentioning Justice, Energy and Communities by name (the others are reported to be the Foreign Office, the Cabinet Office, the Treasury  and Northern Ireland). He later added on BBC News that this meant he was now "about 20 per cent of the way there"

Today's Telegraph reports that Iain Duncan Smith has offered to cut welfare by another £3bn in order to protect spending on defence and the police, but Osborne made it clear that with the Lib Dems opposed to any further welfare cuts, this was not an option. "We've already accepted big reductions in welfare, including big reductions for this year, now we've got to look for savings in Whitehall, in government, in bureaucracy," he said. And he made it clear that this would include further cuts to the Home Office and Defence, despite the public protestations of Philip Hammond and Theresa May. While Osborne emphasised that he was "not going to do things that are going to endanger the security of the country, either at home or abroad", he added, "that doesn't mean you can't find savings in the way these big departments operate." In addition to dampening Tory hopes of further cuts to welfare, Osborne also signalled that had no plans to introduce further tax rises on top of those announced in the Budget. "I am in effect ruling it out, I'm looking for the money from Whitehall", he said. 

Challenged on why he was having a Spending Review at all, when he might not be in government for the period in question (2015-16), Osborne pointed out that "the financial year starts before the general election" and also revealed his underlying political motive. The review, he said, would raise the "very interesting question" of whether Labour "would match these plans". Should Labour fail to do so, Osborne will accuse them, as the Tories did in 1992, of planning a "tax bombshell" or more of the borrowing "that got us into this mess in the first place". After the Chancellor's pre-Spending Review report this morning, that is a dilemma Ed Miliband and Ed Balls will soon to have to confront. 

George Osborne arrives at media company Unruly, on April 25, 2013 in London. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Wikipedia.
Show Hide image

Daniel Hannan harks back to the days of empire - the Angevin Empire

Did the benign rule of some 12th century English kings make western France vote Macron over Le Pen?

I know a fair amount about British politics; I know a passable amount about American politics, too. But, as with so many of my fellow Britons, in the world beyond that, I’m lost.

So how are we, the monolingual Anglophone opinionators of the world, meant to interpret a presidential election in a country where everyone is rude enough to conduct all their politics in French?

Luckily, here’s Daniel Hannan to help us:

I suppose we always knew Dan still got a bit misty eyed at the notion of the empire. I just always thought it was the British Empire, not the Angevin one, that tugged his heartstrings so.

So what exactly are we to make of this po-faced, historically illiterate, geographically illiterate, quite fantastically stupid, most Hannan-y Hannan tweet of all time?

One possibility is that this was meant as a serious observation. Dan is genuinely saying that the parts of western France ruled by Henry II and sons in the 12th century – Brittany, Normandy, Anjou, Poitou, Aquitaine – remain more moderate than those to the east, which were never graced with the touch of English greatness. This, he is suggesting, is why they generally voted for Emmanuel Macron over Marine Le Pen.

There are a number of problems with this theory. The first is that it’s bollocks. Western France was never part of England – it remained, indeed, a part of a weakened kingdom of France. In some ways it would be more accurate to say that what really happened in 1154 was that some mid-ranking French nobles happened to inherit the English Crown.

Even if you buy the idea that England is the source of all ancient liberties (no), western France is unlikely to share its political culture, because it was never a part of the same polity: the two lands just happened to share a landlord for a while.

As it happens, they didn’t even share it for very long. By 1215, Henry’s youngest son John had done a pretty good job of losing all his territories in France, so that was the end of the Angevins. The English crown reconquered  various bits of France over the next couple of centuries, but, as you may have noticed, it hasn’t been much of a force there for some time now.

At any rate: while I know very little of French politics, I’m going to go out on a limb and guess the similarities between yesterday's electoral map and the Angevin Empire were a coincidence. I'm fairly confident that there have been other factors which have probably done more to shape the French political map than a personal empire that survived for the length of one not particularly long human life time 800 years ago. Some wars. Industrialisation. The odd revolution. You know the sort of thing.

If Daniel Hannan sucks at history, though, he also sucks at geography, since chunks of territory which owed fealty to the English crown actually voted Le Pen. These include western Normandy; they also include Calais, which remained English territory for much longer than any other part of France. This seems rather to knacker Hannan’s thesis.

So: that’s one possibility, that all this was an attempt to make serious point; but, Hannan being Hannan, it just happened to be a quite fantastically stupid one.

The other possibility is that he’s taking the piss. It’s genuinely difficult to know.

Either way, he instantly deleted the tweet. Because he realised we didn’t get the joke? Because he got two words the wrong way round? Because he realised he didn’t know where Calais was?

We’ll never know for sure. I’d ask him but, y’know, blocked.

UPDATE: Breaking news from the frontline of the internet: 

It. Was. A. Joke.

My god. He jokes. He makes light. He has a sense of fun.

This changes everything. I need to rethink my entire world view. What if... what if I've been wrong, all this time? What if Daniel Hannan is in fact one of the great, unappreciated comic voices of our time? What if I'm simply not in on the joke?

What if... what if Brexit is actually... good?

Daniel, if you're reading this – and let's be honest, you are definitely reading this – I am so sorry. I've been misunderstanding you all this time.

I owe you a pint (568.26 millilitres).

Serious offer, by the way.

 

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Daniel Hannan. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.

0800 7318496