Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Parties 'overambitious' with spending cut plans

  • Comment

Britain’s political parties have been “overambitious” with their spending cut plans, according to a think tank that warned clearing the country’s deficit would need sweeping public service cuts.

As no main party has planned significant welfare payment cuts, Robert Chote, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said public service budgets would have to suffer the harshest restrictions in 30 years to address the record £163bn deficit.

His comments followed the publication of an IFS report that says the public is being denied an “informed choice” on the parties ahead of the general election, as none had set out their long term financial plans.

Mr Chote placed the blame “primarily” on Labour, because the governing party refused to carry out a review of government spending before 6 May.

Conservative plans to cut public spending this year were also criticised by the director because they would make little difference to the country’s overall public finances in the long term, but could damage the “fragile” economic recovery.

Mr Chote suggested the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat claims to cut spending were all “overambitious”. No matter which party won the general election, the next government would need more tax increases than admitted so far, he warned.

“Over the four years starting next year, Labour and the Liberal Democrats would need to deliver the deepest sustained cuts to spending on public services since the late 1970s,” he said.

“While, starting this year, the Conservatives would need to deliver cuts to spending on public services that have not been delivered over any five-year period since the Second World War.”

  • Comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.