Today George Osborne opted for the slice: a two year freeze in public sector pay (rather than linking pay with performance), a three year freeze in child benefit (rather than withdrawing it from
middle and high earners), a slightly lower rate of increase of benefits and a slightly lower rate of increase of tax thresholds. The general sense was that his ambitions for government were
similar to that of the last administration. That sense was reinforced by his last two measures. Increasing the state pension in line with earnings suggests that Britons should look
first to the government for support in retirement (as well as increasing the cost of already unaffordable pension commitments). Increasing benefits for people on low incomes with children
suggests that redistribution is still the right answer to poverty, as against other ideas such as education reform.
Clearly this isn’t the last word in the story because the Spending Review is to come. And given the deadline of 50 days, the temptation to take the short term measures would have been
almost irresistible for any Chancellor. And George Osborne has achieved the main thing which is to commit to eliminate the deficit in one Parliament. But in his own terms, he has started the
cuts in the wrong way.
Andrew Haldenby is director of Reform