George osborne

Tuesday

Peter Hoskin

The politics of ringfencing

Jean Chrétien, the former Canadian prime minister, has acquired an almost mythic status in certain Tory circles for the way his government cut back public spending in the 1990s. So it’s worth paying attention to his remarks about ringfencing departmental budgets last night. He didn’t quite go so far as to say that withholding the axe would fatally undermine George Osborne’s deficit reduction plan, but he did suggest that it would make the politics of the situation a good deal tricker: “Jean Chrétien, whose tough fiscal tightening programme in the 1990s is seen by the Government as a model for Britain today, warned that everyone always came up with plausible

James Forsyth James Forsyth

Waiting on AV

Every conversation I have about the durability of the Coalition comes back to the AV referendum. The conventional wisdom is that if AV is defeated then it will be very hard for Clegg to keep his party in. For this reason, people pay extremely close attention to the Tory leadership’s attitude to AV. We are waiting to see if there is even a hint that Cameron is prepared to soften his position on the issue to strengthen the Coalition.   So Danny Finkelstein’s blog this morning suggesting that ‘AV might provide the answer to the otherwise impossible question – if the parties stay together, how can they fight the election

David Blackburn

The rookie gambler turns pro

George Osborne is an enigma. For many, his politics and personality are defined by a photograph of him sneering in the Bullingdon’s clashing colours. The determined face that presented the Budget contradicted that stereotype; it suggested that Osborne was coming of age.    Paul Goodman was part of Osborne’s Shadow Treasury team and one of the ‘Gang of Four’ who prepared IDS and Michael Howard for PMQs, along with Boris, Cameron and Osborne. He has written an extensive appraisal of Osborne the man and politician. Read the piece: it’s enthralling, a detailed account of Osborne’s political adolescence through the years of defeat and a candid analysis of his tactical expertise.

Peter Hoskin

Hugh Orde’s rhetoric is encouraging for Osborne

Whatever happened to Sir Hugh Orde?  A few months ago, he was threatening to resign over the Tories’ plans for elected police commissioners.  But later, in a speech to the Association of Chief Police Officers, he seems to have come over considerably more cooperative.  On spending cuts, he stresses that police numbers will likely be reduced, but adds that “we fully understand that all will have to share the pain.”  And on elected police commissioners, the worst he can bring himself to say is that “the test is reconciling it with operational independence for policing … we have an absolute right to clarity on how this system will work.”  There

Monday

Peter Hoskin

Osborne turns his attention to welfare

George Osborne suggested as much in his Today interview last week, but now we know for sure: the government will look to cut the welfare bill even further in October’s spending review, and incapacity benefit will come in for special attention from the axemen. It was, you sense, ever going to be thus. With unprotected departments facing cuts of over 25 percent unless more action is taken elsewhere, the £12bn IB budget was always going to be a tempting target for extra cuts. Particularly as so much of it goes to claimants who could be in work. The questions now are how? and how fast?  The first answer seems clear

Friday

David Blackburn

Cameron takes to the global stage, orating for a domestic audience

From the point of view of historical curiosity, it is a pity that the great Victorian statesman predeceased the era of global summits. What would Palmerston or Melbourne have made of the pageantry? What might they have said to permeate it? Would they have wanted to? Modern British Prime Ministers have moulded themselves on the world stage: Blair as a liberal interventionist, Brown as a Keynesian. Judging by an article David Cameron has written in the Globe and Mail, he hopes to lead the world to fiscal re-trenchment and inaugurate lasting and real prosperity through free trade. Once again, Cameron’s premiership appears to be descended from Gladstone. Cameron insists that

Thursday

David Blackburn

The Budget PR battle enters a second phase

The government is on the defensive. The IFS’ pronouncement that the Budget was ‘regressive’ and the VAT hike ‘avoidable’ has given sustenance to the opposition and their supporters in the media. At the time, Harriet Harman’s response to the Budget seemed execrable. Now, I’m not so sure. Harman is like a Swordfish bi-plane attacking a battleship: she is so slow and obsolete that her superior opponents cannot bring their modern guns to bear. So she closes the range and scores a hit. Tuesday was one of her more successful strikes. As John Rentoul notes, Harman had a point beneath the bluster. The OBR is George Osborne’s weak spot; it downgraded

Fraser Nelson Fraser Nelson

The true meaning of Osborne’s Budget

To understand the budget properly, read James Forsyth’s cover story in The Spectator today. Sure, it was about reducing the deficit – but within it lie several political strategies which explain how George Osborne hopes to win a majority Conservative government. James says that those around Cameron will not entertain this notion – they “have been persuading themselves that coalition government is the best possible result”. But Osborne, he says, finds it deeply unsatisfactory and has a twin mission: fix the economy, and win outright next time. “He has been observing recently that Gordon Brown spent 13 years successfully creating Labour voters — mainly through state dependency — and that

Wednesday

Peter Hoskin

IFS: there could be deeper cuts to come

An unfamiliar mood before the Institute for Fiscal Studies’ Budget briefing today: many of the gathered journalists, economists and policymakers had decided that, for once, this wouldn’t be an exercise in spotting the Chancellor’s deceptions, because, quite simply, there aren’t many. And they could well be right. In his introductory remarks, Robert Chote, the director of the IFS, said that “the government is certainly to be congratulated for the transparency with which it presented [yesterday’s policy announcements].” What we’ve heard, so far, backs up that tribute. There will be an extra £50 billion of fiscal tightening by 2015; there is a 77-23 split between spending cuts and tax rises; and

Fraser Nelson Fraser Nelson

The road to recovery | 23 June 2010

This is a slow-burning budget. Not because Osborne has concealed, like Gordon Brown did, but because the reverse is true. The budget is, as Osborne says, a third of the size but with three times the amount of information. It has layers: some policies and language are there just to assuage the LibDems. Some are pure Tory. James has a brilliant cover piece in tomorrow’s magazine which spells out the political, rather than economic, forces at work in this budget. Osborne, that great player of three-dimensional chess, sees in this budget plans to restore a Tory majority government. The Red Book itself is, for wonks like myself, a joy to

Mark Wallace

The EU must face cuts too

This is a balancing act Budget. At every stage and on almost every topic there’s a bit of good news and a bit of bad news for taxpayers. Spending cuts are (finally) on the way, but at over £30 billion by 2014-15 they aren’t large enough, and there is plenty of dead wood that the Coalition intends to leave in place. Similarly, the rise in the income tax threshold is extremely welcome, but the VAT hike will hit the poorest hardest of all. And so it goes down the list of Government financial activities. Indeed, the theme the Government are keen to communicate is one of leaving no stone unturned,

Peter Hoskin

Osborne winning the Budget PR battle – but VAT remains a thorny issue

Well, that’s gone as well as can be expected for the coalition.  Most of today’s newspaper coverage highlights the severity of George Osborne’s Budget – but, crucially, it adds that the Chancellor had few other options.  The Telegraph calls it a “brave Budget”.  The Times says that it delivers “the best of fiscal conservatism combined with no small measure of social justice”.  And even the FT – no friend of the Tories in recent years – suggests that Osborne might be “remembered for doing Britain a great service.” The sourest notes chime around the government’s welfare cuts and the hike in VAT.  Already, it’s clear that the latter will be

Tuesday

Ed Holmes

A credible start

Today’s Emergency Budget announced the most ambitious fiscal consolidation programme in decades.  It sets out a framework returning the government broadly to a state of fiscal solvency by 2014.  To do this, George Osborne announced a deficit reduction programme amounting to just over £100 billion in real terms – entirely in line with our recommendations.  The ratio of spending cuts to tax rises – 74:26 is largely in line with the international best practice model (which we also endorsed) of 80:20.   Instead of government living well beyond its means for the next four years, we estimate that the Chancellor’s plans will reduce the structural deficit – in other words,

Matthew Sinclair

Why must VAT rise? Because not enough will be cut

There is plenty of very good news in the Budget.  A two year public sector pay freeze, the abolition of the Child Trust Fund and cuts in welfare spending are all longstanding TPA recommendations that will be absolutely key to getting the public finances under control.  As a result of all the measures proposed, annual spending will be £31.9 billion lower than planned by 2014-15.   The Government are also scrapping more organisations.  The Emergency Budget report says (page 31) that “Regional Development Agencies will be abolished through the Public Bodies Bill.”  We called for their abolition as far back as August 2008 and the Spectator manifesto included a demand

Andrew Haldenby

Slice not structure

Two weeks ago, when launching the Spending Review, George Osborne called for a once-in-a-lifetime debate about the shape of government in the UK.  He implied that there is a right and a wrong way to cut the deficit.  It would be right to cut spending by addressing the structural causes of the deficit – i.e. public sector inefficiency and the UK’s unwillingness to cut its pensions and health entitlements.  It would be wrong to leave the shape of public services and welfare unchanged, but limit their costs temporarily – “salami slice” – with public sector pay freezes for instance.   Today George Osborne opted for the slice: a two year

Peter Hoskin

What Harriet Harman won’t tell you

By her usual standards, Harriet Harman was quite effective in her response to George Osborne’s Budget earlier.  She was clear, direct and had a few gags at Vince Cable’s expense.  And she also benefitted from what, on the surface, was a strong central attack: the Office for Budget Responsibility, she said, has downgraded its jobs forecasts on the back of the Budget.  And so, she followed, this is a Budget which destroys jobs. But there were a few things that Harman wasn’t letting on.  First, as Jim Pickard points out at the FT, the OBR forecasts haven’t shifted by all that much from their previous incarnation.  And, second, they are

Peter Hoskin

Our rising debt burden

Debt may start falling as a share of GDP at the end of this Parliament (see p.2 here), but it’s still going up in cash terms.  Here’s a comparison with Labour’s last Budget:

Peter Hoskin

Unspectacular, but quite effective

Well, that was excitingly unexciting.  There was little in George Osborne’s Budget that we didn’t expect, either in terms of rhetoric or policy.  But it still felt new and different nonetheless.  Here we had a Chancellor setting out exactly how much spending he will cut, and putting plenty of emphasis on both our deficit and debt burdens.  It drew a stark contrast with the Brown years, and was a solidly understated performance in itself. There will be plenty of attention paid to the hike in VAT, and rightly so.  But there were some macroeconomic forecasts which were just as eyecatching.  In his address, Osborne suggested that the deficit on “current

Peter Hoskin

Budget 2010 – live blog

1343, PH: Harman has sat down now, so we’ll draw the live blog to a close.  I’ll write a summary post shortly. 1342, FN: I wish I could trash Harman’s response, but it’s actually quite good.  Many a Tory would be secretly cheering her trashing of the LibDems. “The LibDems denounced early cuts, now they’re backing them – how could they support everything they fought against, how could they let down everyone who voted for them?” Again, a fair point. “The LibDems used to stand up for people’s jobs, now they only stand up for their own.” Her main point – that forecasts for unemployment have risen – is a

Matthew Sinclair

George Osborne must put spending cuts ahead of tax rises

In 2009, Britain borrowed more, as a share of its national income, than any country that isn’t being bailed out by the IMF and the Eurozone (Greece) or already making drastic spending cuts (Ireland).  That huge deficit is the critical challenge to our economic stability that George Osborne needs to tackle with the Budget today.  We have got away with high borrowing so far on the understanding that cuts are coming now the election is out of the way.   If you think tax hikes are the answer, then you’re asking the wrong question.  Our present fiscal crisis is built on a decade of bumper rises in spending, not tax