« | Home | »

Osborne’s ‘Savings’

Tags: | |

The chancellor’s autumn statement was rhetorically quite adroit. It remains within the ‘narrative’ established by the coalition when it was formed – that Britain’s debts were at unprecedented levels, and as such there was no alternative to paying them off as fast as possible. Anything else would lead to our being no better than Greece, Spain or Italy. The happy consequence of drastic debt repayment is that yields on British government debt are as low as Germany’s (true, but not because of debt repayment) and much lower than the decrepit Mediterranean states. That the ‘size’ of Britain’s debt is largely folk myth doesn’t alter the fact that the perpetuation of the myth is consistent with everything the government has already said.

Furthermore, the statement associates itself with now widely accepted criticisms of the British economy: it is seriously unbalanced; the workforce is relatively unskilled; small business is starved of money and the banks are partly responsible; there are major deficiencies in the country’s infrastructure. Thus much of the detail of the statement is about the government’s proposals for repairing the weaknesses; and some of the proposals are very sensible. A veil of silence, however, is cast over the part the Tories themselves played in this sorry story.

The tone of the statement is also to some extent Lib Dem-ish. It is couched in terms of ‘fairness’ and opportunity. The government will protect the poor and aged. The reskilling of the workforce, especially the young, will sustain the social mobility that Clegg has insisted is one of the main ambitions of the government. Everything will be done to encourage small business which, it is conceded, sometimes cannot compete with German small business. Much of the detail is designed to be creative and positive, to obscure the statement’s downside.

There is certainly a downside: it is clear that all money spent is to be matched by money ‘saved’ – though where and how is not revealed. There will therefore seemingly be no addition to aggregate demand or to net investment. In which case all the infrastructural expenditure and assistance to small business could be irrelevant. Some ‘savings’ are intended to be permanent and Osborne is open about them: the eventual raising of the retirement age to 67 is one. Most depressing is the decision to cut further the real income of public sector workers, which, despite what is said, is unfair and represents yet another attempt to control wage settlements in the private sector via a discriminatory tax on public sector workers. In the past all such attempts have ended in tears.

Almost as depressing is the decision to sell off social housing to existing tenants at discounts of up to 50 per cent. The proceeds, the chancellor says, will go to the construction of new social housing. But if current social housing is sold off hugely underpriced it must mean a net reduction in the stock of social housing since the financial return is below replacement level. This is exactly the kind of political manipulation of the housing market that has landed us in so much trouble in the past, and it is almost unbelievable that we are to be sentenced to that treadmill yet again. This is part of the Tory tone of the statement; one of several. The government wishes to encourage yet more ‘flexibility’ of the labour market – a dog whistle that everybody can hear – and the chancellor has decided yet again to limit petrol duties in the interests of the hard-pressed motorist. Short-termism if ever there was any.

Unless the chancellor has a rabbit up his sleeve it appears that the net effect of the statement must be deflationary. In which case the prediction of 0.9 per cent and 0.7 per cent growth in the next two years – itself miserable enough – could be thought optimistic.

Comments on “Osborne’s ‘Savings’”

  1. loxhore says:

    tory spokespeople (such as michael fallon) seem concerned to represent low yields as both a feature and a sign of the fundamentally favourable state of the economy, and to be using the interpretation of them as a sign to argue that we should strive to maintain them as a feature

  2. bilejones says:

    “it is clear that all money spent is to be matched by money ‘saved’ – though where and how is not revealed.”

    One thing is certain, it will not be saved by eschewing wars of aggression.

  3. SpinningHugo says:

    You have confused the debt with the deficit: a very serious and common error.

    Nobody claims that the current levels of debt is the problem.

    Nobody is proposing anything other than huge further borrowing for the foreseeable future.

    • Thomas Jones says:

      ‘Nobody claims that the current levels of debt is the problem.’ Here’s the Daily Mail a couple of weeks ago:

      David Cameron admitted yesterday that shrinking the nation’s debt mountain is proving harder than expected… ‘Yes, getting debt under control is proving harder than anyone envisaged. High levels of public and private debt are proving to be a drag on growth, which in turn makes it more difficult to deal with those debts,’ the Prime Minister said.

      And here’s Osborne’s statement to Parliament:

      our debt challenge is even greater than we thought… In that Budget we set out a tough fiscal mandate – that we would eliminate the current structural deficit over the five year forecast horizon… We supplemented the mandate with a fixed debt target – that we would get national debt as a proportion of national income falling by the year 2015-16… We are going to see Britain through the debt storm.

      And McKibbin says:

      The chancellor’s autumn statement… remains within the ‘narrative’ established by the coalition when it was formed – that Britain’s debts were at unprecedented levels, and as such there was no alternative to paying them off as fast as possible… That the ‘size’ of Britain’s debt is largely folk myth doesn’t alter the fact that the perpetuation of the myth is consistent with everything the government has already said.

      • SpinningHugo says:

        thomas

        Saying,as Caneron did that we “have to get debt under control”

        or as Osborne did that they ” would eliminate the current structural deficit over the five year forecast horizon… We supplemented the mandate with a fixed debt target – that we would get national debt as a proportion of national income falling by the year 2015-1″

        is completely different from McKibbin’s claim that they are saying our debts need ‘paying off’ or that we are either engaged in or that anyone has proposed ‘drastic debt repayment’.

        He is just confused.

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.


  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • andymartinink on Reacher v. Parker: Slayground definitely next on my agenda. But to be fair to Lee Child, as per the Forbes analysis, there is clearly a massive collective reader-writer ...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: And in Breakout, Parker, in prison, teams up with a black guy to escape; another white con dislikes it but accepts the necessity; Parker is absolutely...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: Parker may not have the integrity and honesty of Marlowe, but I'd argue that Richard Stark writes with far more of both than Raymond Chandler does: Ch...
    • Christopher Tayler on Reacher v. Parker: Good to see someone holding up standards. The explanation is that I had thoughts - or words - left over from writing about Lee Child. (For Chandler se...
    • Geoff Roberts on Reacher v. Parker: ..."praised in the London Review of Books" Just read the article on Lee Child in a certain literary review and was surprised to find this rave notice...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Chris Lehmann: The Candidates
    18 June 2015

    ‘Every one of the Republican candidates can be described as a full-blown adult failure. These are people who, in most cases, have been granted virtually every imaginable advantage on the road to success, and managed nevertheless to foul things up along the way.’

    Hugh Pennington:
    The Problem with Biodiversity
    10 May 2007

    ‘As a medical microbiologist, for example, I have spent my career fighting biodiversity: my ultimate aim has been to cause the extinction of harmful microbes, an objective shared by veterinary and plant pathologists. But despite more than a hundred years of concentrated effort, supported by solid science, smallpox has been the only success.’

    Jeremy Harding: At the Mexican Border
    20 October 2011

    ‘The battle against illegal migration is a domestic version of America’s interventions overseas, with many of the same trappings: big manpower commitments, militarisation, pursuit, detection, rendition, loss of life. The Mexican border was already the focus of attention before 9/11; it is now a fixation that shows no signs of abating.’

    James Meek: When the Floods Came
    31 July 2008

    ‘Last July, a few days after the floods arrived, with 350,000 people still cut off from the first necessity of life, Severn Trent held its annual general meeting. It announced profits of £325 million, and confirmed a dividend for shareholders of £143 million. Not long afterwards the company, with the consent of the water regulator Ofwat, announced that it wouldn’t be compensating customers: all would be charged as if they had had running water, even when they hadn’t.’

Advertisement Advertisement