Blog & Articles

Austerity after 2015: why the worst is yet to come

Matthew Whittaker
Date: 20. June 2013 / Category: Public services

With a week to go before the Spending Review, reports suggest that the Treasury has secured just a third of the £11.5bn of cuts planned in 2015-16. Yet amid the claim and counter-claim about how far departmental budgets can be squeezed, it is worth reflecting on how the review fits into the broader context of deficit reduction. If current plans are to be delivered, this round of cuts is merely an hors d'oeuvre for a far more painful set of decisions to be made after the next election.

New analysis by the Resolution Foundation shows that departments are already expected to be some 9% smaller on average in 2014-15 than in 2010-11 as a result of cuts in the 2010 Spending Review. With spending on health, schools and overseas aid protected, these have been far starker for some departments. At the extreme, the Foreign Office will be just half of its previous size, while the communities department will have shrunk by more than two-fifths. More typically, the defence budget will have fallen by 17%, while the Home Office will have suffered a 25% cut.

Not surprising, then, that the 2.6% of additional savings called for in 2015-16 are proving hard to find. With health, schools and overseas aid once again protected, the government’s plans imply average cuts of 8% across all other departments. With every additional pound of savings harder to identify than the last, don’t be surprised if the Chancellor decides to raise extra revenue from further welfare cuts.

Yet the new analysis also shows that - if the current deficit reduction timetable is adhered to — there’s (much) more to come. Painful though the current process is, existing plans imply a further £26bn of cuts between 2016 and 2018. This would mean either accelerating the pace of departmental cuts or introducing major new welfare cuts or tax rises. As tough as 2015-16 may be, this year’s Spending Review would merely be the calm in the eye of the storm.

What does this mean in practice for the years after 2015? Delivering the current plans without further welfare cuts or tax rises would imply speeding up departmental cuts by 50%. If health, schools and aid spending is again protected, that would imply cumulative cuts to unprotected departments by 2017-18 that begin to look implausible. Defence and the Home Office would be between one-third and one-half smaller than in 2010-11. The Foreign Office would be two-thirds smaller than it was seven years before.

This scenario would have profound implications for the role and shape of the state. Total departmental spending would have fallen 18% between 2010-11 and 17-18. Within that total, the proportion going to health would have increased from one-quarter to one-third, while spending on defence would have fallen from 10% to 8%.

Of course, the government could decide to ease post-2015-16 departmental cuts by seeking more from welfare or tax. Yet our new analysis reveals that simply keeping post-election departmental cuts to their current pace will require an extra £10bn from welfare or tax over two years. For a sense of scale, this is the equivalent of finding more in two years than will be cut from the tax credit budget in seven (£9bn). Alternatively, it would mean raising VAT from 20% to 21%. Hardly options that will help to ease the decade-long squeeze on living standards.

In reality, any post-2015 government would be likely to adopt a combination of measures. In particular, we can expect to hear more in the coming weeks and months about a potential cap on ‘structural’ aspects of Annually Managed Expenditure (AME). While both the government and the opposition have declared an intention to grapple with these aspects of spending, practical and political constraints mean their options are limited. Once we rule out the non-welfare parts of AME (e.g. debt interest payments) and politically-sensitive benefits (the state pension) that leaves less than one-third to work with. Within this envelope, housing benefit, tax credits and the employment and support allowance would appear to be in line for cuts. Determining which aspects of such payments are structural and which are cyclical will be a difficult task.

Finally, we might expect calls for cuts in pensioner benefits to intensify. Under current plans, the proportion of welfare spending accounted for by the State Pension and associated benefits is set to increase from 42% in 2010-11 to 48% in 2017-18. The government’s ‘triple lock’ means that this is a product not just of demographics, but of increased generosity per pensioner. Average pensioner payments are set to increase by 6% over the period at the same time as average working-age support declines by 15%.

Of course, we shouldn’t forget that all of these numbers depend heavily on deeply uncertain estimates of the output gap, a figure that has been revised dramatically in the past and may well be revised again. But it’s difficult to see past the likelihood that the post-election period will bring with it a new suite of difficult choices, from departmental cuts that look increasingly hard to deliver to further cuts to working-age support or the introduction of unannounced tax rises. Ultimately, we might be looking at further slippage in the deficit-reduction timetable. Don’t rule out the chance of it being all four.

This blog originally appeared on the New Statesman

back to list

Share this

Filters

Archive

Tag Cloud

Gavin Kelly Resolution Foundation living standards childcare James Plunkett Housing wages inflation tax credits Squeezed Middle tax Vidhya Alakeson coalition inequality Matthew Whittaker minimum wage new statesman Debt Spending Review female employment growth low pay Squeezed Britain Universal Credit autumn statement Labour USA welfare women work incentives Budget 2012 employment generation rent giselle cory household income IFS institutional investment interest rates labour market living wage low to middle income politics recovery social mobility affordability Audit budget 2011 cameron Commission on Living Standards distribution earnings economy Ed Miliband education fiscal choices household debt living low pay commission older workers skills social care spending round sr2013 unemployment zero hours Affordable Housing America bank of england budget child benefit child poverty cost of living David Cameron debt target degree Guardian income jared bernstein joe coward lee savage Lib Dems living costs measuring poverty middle class mortgages Obama pay poverty recession tax cuts uk 10p arrears benefits borrowing Commission cpi cuts david willetts debt forgivenes dilnot Donald Hirsch fiscal forbearance gearing George Osborne great stagnation household housing market huffington post income tax ippr Ipsos MORI jobs gap lane kenworthy Low earners matthew pennycook monetary policy Nick Clegg pension Pensions personal allowance personal allowances polarisation precarious work prices prospect q2 growth regional renting rpi shared ownership social housing social mobility foundation Sophia Parker standards sutton trust tax changes tax relief think tank think-tank underemployment Wage squeeze 2013 Work working poor zero hours contract 'Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings' 'earnings squeeze' 'squeeze' 'wage stagnation' #ows £10000 2011 2012 50p 99% a matter of time Alan Johnson Alex Hurrell allowance andrew haldane Anna Vignoles apprenticeships ASHE assets Australia below minimum wage benefit freezes borgen Boris Johnson budget 2013 cap care assistant centreforum chancellor childcar choices CiF citizens UK Coalition politics Conor D'Arcy conservatives contracts Cost of Motherhood costs council tax council tax benefit CPIH daniel chandler datablog de-coupling debt peril deficit department for education dependency election election 2015 enforcement equity release family felicity dennistoun Financial Times first-time buyers food prices full employment gap GDP gender gingerbread good life gregg growth without gain HELP Committee higher rate higher rate tax relief hmrc holmes homeownership hourglass household finances household spending illegal in work income inequality incomes increase Independent indignados international jobs John Van Reenen jrf Labour Party Left Foot Forward liberal democrats living wage foundation LMIs low middle earners Low Pay Britain low pay threshold low to middle income earners low wage low wage work machin marginal tax rate marriage tax allowance matt whittaker matthew hancock mayhew median real wage median wage Mervyn King Middle Britain miminum wage minimum income standards missing out mobility Montague mortgage market mothers national minimum wage netmums new statesman blog new year newby newham niesr nil hours number paid below minimum wage nursery world OBR occupy occupy wall street OECD older ons over 50s paul gregg pay and pensions pay progression pensions relief personal personal finance pledge cards policy politicans poll population precarious employment predistribution prescription charges priorities private rented private rented sector private sector growth progression prs public sector public services public spending ratios reduce credit card reform Regions Rented Sector resolution foudnation retirement robin wales robots routine jobs RPIJ rss savings self-employment Senate shared shereen hussein social society southern cross spending cuts squeezed state state pension age statistics steve machin tax and benefit changes tax and benefits Tax Benefits technology The Spirit Level threshold tories travel time Treasury trends unison university US election van reenen VAT voters voting wage wage growth wage inequality Welfare Debate welfare state White Paper workers Working part time lower skilled job young people Youth unemployment youth wages zero-hours