How we got here – and where we're going
Peter Hoskin 11:08amWith the Spending Review less than two hours away, I thought CoffeeHousers might like to be armed with a few graphs that set the scene. What follows is by no means the complete picture of the fiscal landscape, but these are certainly some of most prominent landmarks.
First up, real terms spending (aka Total Managed Expenditure) from 1966 to 2015:
So, yes, all the fuss is about that small dip at the end of the blue line – a dip, as it happens, of about four percent. But don't think that the fuss is entirely unwarranted. What the government is trying to do here is curb a trend of ever-increasing spending that has persisted over decades, and which rocketed during the New Labour years. In the face of naturally rising social security payments (more or less captured by the green line, Annually Managed Expenditure) and debt interest payments, this has to be done by stemming the cash that departments have to play with. The red line – Departmental Expenditure Limits – is a reflection of the 25 percent cuts that some departments will face.
Indeed, the following graph shows that there hasn't been a more prolonged period of real terms spending cuts across the period, even if there have been deeper one-off cuts:
If we present spending as a percentage of GDP, then a strikingly different picture emerges:
So, the cuts in the spending review will reduce spending by 8 percentage points of GDP, from 48 percent to 40 percent. On that measure, the state was actually smaller in the early years of New Labour. And there was a steeper drop in the spending/GDP ratio during the Thatcher years, as this graph also shows:

Hovering above all this is our monolithic debt burden. Here's how that looks in real terms:
Much like the first spending graph, this has shot up during the past decade – but will flatten off during the next five years as the government curtails the borrowing that actually adds to our debt. As the economy grows, this means that our debt will actually decrease as a percentage of GDP:
In the end, the aim of this Spending Review is to tackle the deficit between the government's incomings and the amount it spends, so that less cash needs to be borrowed. As this final graph shows, the state hasn't run a surplus since 2000 – in spite of the boom that we were told wouldn't go bust. On the coalition's forecasts, this should be pretty much rectified by the end of this Parliament:
Now, to the actual review itself – and the specific cuts that lie under the headline numbers.



Previous






Nick
October 20th, 2010 11:41am Report this commentWe got here because Labour pissed money up the wall.
Now we have Brown hiding in Scotland, not doing his job as an MP.
So he's trousering his salary, his 100K a year as an ex-PM, is ministerial pay off. His security, for nowt.
Rewards for failure? Yes, look at politicians.
In the meantime its collective punishment for the innocent taxpayer. Fairness my backside.
TrevorsDen
October 20th, 2010 11:43am Report this commentLookat how spending flatlined in the 80's and then rose under major ... but was then brought under control.
Then look how it took of from about 2000. An increase of about 250 billion pounds a year on top of £450 billion base.
Can any Labour apologist here tell me how they expected to raise revenue to cover that spending increase?
If anyone doubts we need to cut spending look at the debt graphs - a Loch Ness Monster of a debt.
Just where did Brown think all that money was going to come from?
Yam Yam
October 20th, 2010 12:28pm Report this commentTrevorsDen - The truth is Brown didn't give a fig where the money was going to come from.
Trimbush
October 21st, 2010 4:00pm Report this commentInterestingly for some - the national debt graph traces virtually the same line as the number of cattle slaughtered having contracted TB from badger (under the last Labour regime) The disease was left to spread exponentially - virally as it were - so too the endemic spending of New Labour - totally out of control!
Back to top