Why is the Spending Review being held now? So Osborne can try and beat up Ed Balls

The Chancellor's decision to set out plans for 2015-16 nearly two years in advance has everything to do with politics and nothing to do with economics.

One question that has been asked all too rarely in coverage of the Spending Review is "why it is being held now?" There is no constitutional or economic requirement for George Osborne to set out spending plans for 2015-16 this far in advance. The current spending period (2011-15) doesn't end until April 2015 and it would have been prudent to wait until the preceding October (as in the case of the previous two reviews) when more recent forecasts will have been produced. 

Osborne's decision not to do so has everything to do with politics and nothing to do with economics. By announcing spending limits for the first year after the election, the Conservatives’' chief political strategist is seeking to draw the battlelines in his party's favour. He knows that if Labour accepts his plans it will be accused of intellectual surrender and that if it rejects them it will be accused of fiscal recklessness.

As apprentices of Gordon Brown, who similarly used the baseline as a weapon of political war, Ed Miliband and Ed Balls were well prepared for this trap. Their pre-emptive response was to accept Osborne's current spending limits, while leaving open the possibility of greater capital investment. For both political and economic reasons, it was the right decision. While the public remain sceptical of the Keynesian case for higher borrowing, polls show that they recognise the benefits of investing in areas such as housing, which boost output in the short and long run, generate employment and ultimately aid deficit reduction. With its own currency, its own independent monetary policy and its above average debt maturity, Britain can afford to borrow for growth without fear of a dangerous rise in bond yields. The risks of inaction, in the form of permanently lower growth and higher unemployment, far outweigh the risks of action.
 
Nearly two years before the end of the current spending period, Osborne's relentless focus should have been on generating growth (as ConservativeHome's Mark Wallace also argues this morning), not on squeezing £11.5bn of cuts out of ministers who may not even be around to implement them. But ever since he entered office, the Chancellor has rarely been able to resist the temptation to put politics before economics. Forget growth, forget jobs, forget deficit reduction even, Osborne has got an election to win and he thinks beating up Ed Balls will help. Your fate, dear voter, is the last thing on his mind today. 
George Osborne walks along The Strand towards a branch of Lloyds bank. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Millennials are caught between limited opportunities and declining sperm counts

The lifestyles led by those picturing a future family could make it much harder to have one.

Amid all of the balanced and scientific responses to the news that male sperm counts have decreased by 60 per cent in the last 40 years, one outlet could be relied upon to give a level-headed analysis.

“Humans could become EXTINCT as sperm counts plummet 60 per cent in 40 years – and modern living is to blame,” shouted the Sun’s bold typeface and capitalisation. While extinction is a long way off – at least from this particular threat – there are serious concerns about birth rates in the year to come, with 15 per cent of the report’s 7,500-strong sample size seeing their fertility impaired.

This is not a position men are used to being in. For once, it is our ability to procreate that is being attacked. Scientists behind the study hope that calling into question men’s reproductive privilege will serve as a “wake-up call” for health authorities and fellow scientists to investigate the causes, and for men to take their lifestyles more seriously.

And yet, at this point, many men would be hard-pressed to care. In blaming “modern living”, the Sun predictably jumps the gun – the study was only designed to confirm or disprove a decrease. Research into causation will now follow, but potential factors hypothesised by the study include “endocrine disrupting chemicals, pesticides, heat and lifestyle factors, including diet, stress, smoking and body mass index”. A poor diet, stress, smoking and a high BMI? It all sounds scarily familiar.

That 21st century life creates stressful conditions in which our health is adversely affected is not exactly breaking news. Mental health diagnoses have increased – with many NHS trusts seeing a rise of 30 per cent in referrals, according to recent figures from BBC Radio 5 Live – and obesity is still a huge concern.

It's no surprise that reproductive health will be compromised, too. But there is a cruel irony in that the very same conditions which erode our reproductive health are precisely those which mean we might not care.

For the majority of millennials, the atmosphere preferred for raising a family – owning a house, financial security, and long-term job prospects – has never seemed so distant. This is despite working longer hours, for more years. That cliché notion of “settling down” is far beyond the horizon, something unimaginable for many trying to claw their way on to the housing ladder, or into a steady and secure career.

By the time that millennial men reach the point in their lives where they have battled stress, a poor diet and caffeine dependency in order to become financially – or romantically – stable enough to want to build a family, sperm counts might be irreparably damaged. There are, after all, fears that the rate of decline is not only stable, but rising.

The findings of the study do indicate that sperm levels are still within the “normal” range, so we’re not at Children of Men levels yet. But if the threat of apocalypse doesn’t spur men into action, the thought of declining health definitely should.

Perhaps it is the complacency derived from better living conditions, higher birth rates and longer life expectancy that leaves us so cold when it comes to these findings – but continuing to take risks with our health will have longer-term side-effects.

It shouldn’t take a study to tell us that 21st century living is bad for our health. Scientists behind the research have a point: we must “wake up” and make more of an effort to keep ourselves in good health.

We must eat fewer processed meats, smoke fewer cigarettes, take more time away from our desks and, to quote “Fitter Happier”, Radiohead’s ode to modern misery, get “regular exercise at the gym, three days a week”. We might not be able to change millennial living, but we can certainly create our own space within it.

Who knows – our lives, those of our as-yet-unconceived children and, if the Sun is to be believed, the entire human race, might depend upon it.