In Britain, attempts to cut spending fuel angst over cherished state

LONDON Mon Jun 24, 2013 7:39pm BST

1 of 5. A British tank rolls down a road in the southern Iraqi city of Basra in this file photograph dated August 24, 2006.

Credit: Reuters/Atef Hassan

Related Topics

LONDON (Reuters) - When the chief enforcer for Britain's finance ministry suggested that the army should cut spending further because it had more horses than tanks, he provoked an indignant response from one of his own colleagues in the cabinet.

As Britain prepares to say who will take the pain for more cuts, the row over ceremonial horses versus tanks shows just how hard it is to trim the size of a state that the government says has been overspending for years.

While the cuts have upset some voters and stoked tensions among senior members of Prime Minister David Cameron's coalition government, the debt mountain is still rising and Britain has lost its prized triple-A credit rating for the first time since it received the rating in 1978.

For Chancellor George Osborne, the row over Britain's military horses shows the political dangers and limits of austerity just as he puts the finishing touches to his spending review announcement due on June 26.

"In a department that has more horses than it has tanks, there are room for efficiency savings without affecting our overall military output," said Danny Alexander, Osborne's cabinet-level deputy at the Treasury.

Asked about the criticism of his horses, Defence Secretary Philip Hammond fired back in parliament: "I will probably not share with my Honourable Friend all the thoughts that I would like to offer to the Treasury and some of my colleagues."

"While it is easy to draw attention to such things as the number of horses in the army, the moral component of our armed forces — that which links it to the great tradition of military service in this country — is a very important part of delivering military capability and is money well spent."

One lawmaker retorted that the bosses at the Treasury, Britain's most powerful ministry, should be served with an "idiot's guide" to Her Majesty's armed forces to put them out of their ignorance.

A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said it had about 500 horses compared to around 350 tanks. The horses are used in ceremonial events such as the opening of parliament and the celebration of Queen Elizabeth's official birthday.

In what will be the fourth year since he took power promising deep spending cuts, Osborne reached deals with ministers including Hammond to secure 11.5 billion pounds ($17.70 billion) of further cuts in 2015-2016. The fate of the horses was not immediately clear.

AUSTERITY BRITAIN?

When Osborne arrived at the offices of the Treasury following the 2010 election, his deputy had been left a note by departing Labour treasury chief secretary Liam Byrne saying: "I'm afraid there's no money left".

Osborne faced a budget deficit of 11 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) and the UK gilt market was, in the words of Pimco's Bill Gross, the manager of the world's biggest bond fund, "resting on a bed of nitroglycerine" because debt was far too high.

The opposition Labour Party accuses him of damaging the economic recovery by cutting too far and too quickly, although it has pledged to keep to the spending plans for 2015-16 if it wins power in the 2015 election.

After Osborne staked the reputation of the Conservative-led coalition government on reducing Britain's debts, lower than expected tax receipts from a stagnant economy forced him to extend the budget cuts way past the 2015 election.

"We are out of intensive care and our job now is to secure the recovery," Osborne said in a BBC interview on Sunday.

"We're going to go on taking the difficult decisions, go on cutting back spending, go on prioritising spending on the things that help the economy and cutting the spending that doesn't."

The International Monetary Fund, long known for its support of austerity economics, has begun calling on Osborne to increase spending to boost demand. Yet the chancellor has shown no sign of relenting, at least in public.

The British state is still spending about 120 billion pounds more than it receives each year. Public sector net debt is forecast to peak at 85.6 percent of GDP in 2016-17.

"Prior to the financial crisis, we had one of the lowest debt ratios of below 40 percent of GDP, so we have seen our debt ratio rise faster than our peer group," said John Hawksworth, chief economist for the United Kingdom at PwC.

"Sustained growth is harder to achieve now, and an older population will be very averse to higher inflation, so it will be a long tough job to get our debt ratio back down to pre-crisis levels of about 40 percent of GDP."

The biggest debt since World War Two has stoked a discussion about whether the taxpayer can still afford the size of state which Britons have cherished for over half a century.

The post-war creation of the welfare state by Labour is taught at schools and Britain's National Health Service is a point of pride, celebrated at the London 2012 Olympics opening ceremony as a part of what it means to be British.

Despite Osborne's reputation for swingeing cuts, total expenditure has actually increased in nominal terms under his watch and is due to rise to 720 billion pounds in 2013-14 from 670 billion pounds in 2009-10.

Osborne says the public sector was far too big and that Britain needs a tough fiscal policy to get the deficit under control so that the government can spend on health and schools.

State spending is declining as a percentage of GDP: from 47.4 percent in 2009-10 to 45.2 percent of GDP in 2013-14. But most of the cuts are still in the future, with spending projected to fall to 40.5 percent of GDP in 2017/18, near the long-term average for Britain for the past half century.

Still, even achieving the cuts so far has required reducing the public sector workforce by nearly 10 percent, to 5.7 million from 6.3 million, a step Labour says holds back the economic recovery by taking money out of the economy.

Britain is cutting the army by 20,000 soldiers over this decade and its navy and air force have lost 5,000 each. Fees charged to students for university have been tripled.

The police force has been cut by at least 10,000 and the Foreign Office has had to cut back embassy jobs, sell off exotic properties and cap expenses for mid-ranking diplomats.

Osborne's hands are partly tied by pledges not to touch spending on the National Health Service and schools - which together account for a third of spending - as well as on overseas aid - a small item but one that annoys some Conservatives who think it wrong to shield aid abroad while imposing cuts at home.

Some senior members of Cameron's Conservative party say Osborne has so far failed to get a grip on the biggest target of all, 220 billion pounds ($338.5 billion) of annual "social protection" spending, nearly a third of the total and more than five times as big as the defence budget.

So far, the government has announced a cap on benefits for any one family at 26,000 pounds a year to ensure that those on state aid do not receive more than the average working family. Tenants in state-funded social housing will be forced to pay a fee or move home if their homes are deemed too large.

Those on unemployment benefit will see rises to their payments capped at 1 percent a year for three years. The wealthy have also been targeted, with parents earning more than 45,000 losing their weekly child benefit cheques.

Polls show as many as six out of 10 voters think state benefits are too generous. But critics say many of the changes, while attracting fanfare, will actually save very little money while hurting the most vulnerable in society.

"These changes will mean it is children and families who will pay the price for high inflation, rather than the government," said Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, spiritual leader of the world's Anglican Christians.

(Additional reporting by William Schomberg, Andrew Osborne and Costas Pitas; Editing by Peter Millership and Peter Graff)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (3)
Raymond.Vermont wrote:
Its either cuts or taxes… Or charging for some govt services by ability to pay!

Whatever, the difference between running the state and paying for it all, isnt (realistically) going to be met by wishful economic growth, in an economy which is already a mature one.

Of course 350 MBT’s, (even ones as marvellous as Challenger 2′s) would be made into scrap metal within one hour by 35 AH-64 Apache’s. (best place for the majority of those MBT’s, being leased towards UK allies within the Middle East)

With regular manpower being cut in both the police and army, and replacing positions with part-timers, why not take the opportunity of requiring the part-timers to be available for both services? (Two birds with one stone)

Of course the bright spot is, that unlike our American allies, the UK already recognises it is not a global military power capable of intervening at a drop of a hat everywhere, and that we shall have a military that will, at least, be on an even keel in affordability. (i.e no 1.2 trillion dollar deficit here, and bizarre pretensions of over-reaching global grandeur!)

Jun 24, 2013 9:07pm BST  --  Report as abuse
r.mutts wrote:
This article fails to mention that GDP was absolutely hammered when the finance crisis hit, which means that even without any additional spending in absolute terms one would see that same spending rise relative to GDP, this is the nature of relative terms. That spending however did rise in absolute terms immediately following the crisis should be surprising to no-one given the massive (and one off) bailouts of the financial sector. Omitting these considerations leads to a massively misleading narrative, namely one which ignores the fact that as cuts eat away at GDP it becomes harder and harder to lower spending relative to it.

Jun 24, 2013 9:43pm BST  --  Report as abuse
Raymond.Vermont wrote:
The rule of thumb being, GDP increases do not really always equate to proportional rises in Gross National Revenues. (especially when that GDP growth, goes straight into the pocket of others outside of our own economy)

Jun 24, 2013 11:42pm BST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.