The Independent View: Osborne’s small beer budget

There are, at most, 777 days until the next UK General Election. Today’s Budget was the last real chance to introduce measures that will have time to create a real impact before then. This, however, was not a Budget designed to alter the path of the economy in any dramatic way:  the Coalition has never veered far from the course set at the Spending Review almost three years ago. Instead, this was a narrow Budget, full of small measures.

That is not to say that this Budget is not important in terms of the next election. Small as its measures were, they are carefully targeted at the voters who will decide the next election. Making it slightly easier to run a car, buy a house or drink a pint are all likely to poll well and this Budget on first glance has avoided the disastrous pratfalls of last year. As such, a small boost to the government’s popularity is possible, and the housing measures in particular may do some real good if properly implemented.

The Budget speaks to the ‘small c’ conservatism of all the government’s most senior ministers, Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander amongst them, when it comes to fiscal measures. They believe the state can do good, but they (and the Chancellor especially) are not convinced that any easing of the predetermined path of government austerity would have much of an impact. As such, Osborne’s Budgets are never likely to be dramatic, most will be small accelerations of already announced policies (see corporation tax cuts) or small targeted handouts (see the fuel duty freeze).

The problem with a small beer Budget is that the policy measures announced are not enthralling enough to prevent eyes from wandering to the macroeconomic picture, figures on which were also laid bare today. The Office for Budgetary Responsibility (OBR) is only predicting 0.6% growth for the UK this year, and only a slightly improved picture the year after. Given the almost irresponsibly over-optimistic forecasts the OBR has put forth in the past, there is a good chance that even these mediocre numbers are optimistic. So there is a significant chance that the economy in 2015 will be smaller than it was in 2010 whilst the deficit will be truncated but a way off elimination.

Few governments survive an election in such circumstances, making this Budget worrying from the Liberal Democrat perspective. Achieving the party’s flagship policy of the £10,000 income tax allowance a year early is impressive, but the Lib Dems run the risk of having little else positive to say on the campaign trail in two years’ time.

Nevertheless, both Coalition partners now have few strategic options left: this Budget has essentially taken a dramatic change of course off of the table. The parties have to now hold tight and hope the global economic headwinds subside in time to lift Britain before the next election.

This Budget may have been mostly small beer measures, but it has determined the course of the remainder of the Coalition.

The Independent View‘ is a slot on Lib Dem Voice which allows those from beyond the party to contribute to debates we believe are of interest to LDV’s readers. Please email [email protected] if you are interested in contributing.

* Daniel Wright is a Senior Associate at Cicero Group

Read more by or more about .
This entry was posted in Op-eds and The Independent View.
Bookmark the web address for this page or use the short url http://ldv.org.uk/33777 for Twitter and emails.

2 Comments

  • Andrew Suffield 20th Mar '13 - 7:38pm

    The Budget speaks to the ‘small c’ conservatism of all the government’s most senior ministers, Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander amongst them, when it comes to fiscal measures.

    And to be fair, for overall short-term growth – the basis on which we judge budgets, from the quarterly growth figures – you usually don’t want to change anything very much year on year. Large changes are disruptive to markets which then have to spend several months reorganising before they work properly again.

  • A Social Liberal 21st Mar '13 - 2:22pm

    I was under the impression that this government was wanting to cut down on the excessive drinking culture that Britains of all classes have embraced so energetically. Why on earth, when there were so many things that the Treasury team could have done to ease the suffering of those in need, did they choose to increase the likeleyhood (however slight, given the amount of relief) of drunken shinnanigans?

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?




Recent Comments

  • User AvatarBill le Breton 19th Apr - 5:56am
    Hi Peter. My starting date is December 81 which is 5 months before the invasion. During those 5 months the Con vote rose 50% ......
  • User AvatarPeter Chegwyn 19th Apr - 1:29am
    I think the Falklands War in 82 had something to do with that turn round Bill.
  • User AvatarDuncan Brack 18th Apr - 11:46pm
    David White - you are right about Beveridge (except that 1945 couldn't be called a khaki election - unlike 1900, for which the term is...
  • User Avatarmalc 18th Apr - 10:51pm
    Mark Valladares Sorry I shouldn't have said military bases, but we do - or may be did until recently, not sure after defence cuts -...
  • User AvatarBill le Breton 18th Apr - 10:24pm
    But what be the biggest shift for a Governing Party over a period of 13 months? Try December 81 to Jan 83. If potential turn...
  • User AvatarEd Wilson 18th Apr - 10:12pm
    Let's try again. "...power 4 million homes..." means onshore wind produces a number of kilowatt hours which, when divided by the notional power consumption of...