“I am not going to hide the hard choices from the British people.” “We have had to pay the bills of past irresponsibility.” “We have been tough, but we have also been fair.”
Those words could have been spoken just this week by Prime Minister Keir Starmer – but they actually came from newly-minted chancellor George Osborne unveiling his first Budget all the way back in 2010.
Reading it back now, it is striking how much of it could have been said by the new Labour Government now preparing to take the axe to public spending.
For Osborne’s monomaniacal focus on “the deficit”, read Labour’s obsession with the “black hole” in the public finances.
Where the Tory chancellor promised “tough” measures, Keir Starmer setting out his grim vision for the immediate future promised “pain”.
One word not mentioned in either Starmer’s speech on Tuesday morning or in Osborne’s June 2010 budget: “Austerity”.
It is the word that came to define the Cameron-Osborne years and now, 14 years on, it’s rearing its head again.
READ MORE: Labour cuts will 'fundamentally damage' Scottish public services, SNP warn
In the nine years after Osborne delivered his first budget – he was long gone as chancellor by then – the UK Government had axed around £37 billion in today’s money from welfare, housing and social services budgets.
The most powerful symbol of how austerity changed Britain is the runaway rise of food banks during the years of Tory rule.
When the Conservatives came to power in 2010, the UK’s largest food bank network, the Trussell Trust, ran around 35 food banks. By 2019, that number had increased by around 3614% to something in the region of 1300, enough to give every city in the UK 17 food banks each.
Austerity made life expectancy worse in poorer parts of the country. It cut average life expectancy by a year and a half. It killed about 190,000 people between 2010 and 2019. That’s the equivalent of nearly everyone in Aberdeen dying in nine years.
READ MORE: Labour's first UK Government Budget will be 'painful', Keir Starmer says
Of course, when Osborne read out his first Budget in the House of Commons on a sunny day in June 14 years ago, he didn’t say that life expectancy would fall, that regional inequalities would widen, that people would die or suffer from the return of Victorian diseases like rickets.
Quite the opposite. In fact, he spoke of the how he planned to tackle the “disparities” between the regions in Britain’s “deeply unbalanced” economy. He said: “We are all in this together”. The Budget “protects the most vulnerable in our society”, he said. “Yes, it is tough, but it is also fair.”
On a sunny day in August, or as it was in London at least, Starmer set out how he planned to take measures to deal with the Tory “black hole”. Yes, that would be “tough”, but those with the “broadest shoulders” would be asked to share the burden.
It remains to be seen what measures Chancellor Rachel Reeves will announce in her Budget at the end of October. There won’t be movement on the two-child benefit cap, the end of the universal Winter Fuel Payment looks set to stay put. Starmer promised it would be “painful”.
It’s a waiting game to find out exactly how painful – and who will hurt the most.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel