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.

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.