George Osborne sets out four years of cuts
Wednesday 20th October 2010, 2:20PM BST.
Chancellor George Osborne set out a four-year plan of cuts today which he said would drag the country “back from the brink”.
Unveiling a Comprehensive Spending Review which could result in almost half a million job losses over four years, Mr Osborne said: “Tackling this budget deficit is unavoidable.”
In the biggest and most brutal round of public spending cuts for more than 80 years, the Chancellor told MPs: “Today’s the day when Britain steps back from the brink, when we confront the bills from a decade of debt.”
He added: “To back down now and abandon our plans would be the road to economic ruin. We will stick to the course. We will secure our country’s stability. We will not take Britain back to the brink of bankruptcy.”
The key points:
- Queen agrees to a one-year cash freeze in the Civil List for next year.
- Pension age for men and women to be 66 by 2020 – four years earlier than planned.
- 500,000 state jobs to go over the next four years.
- Structural deficit to be eliminated by 2015.
- Police funding cut by four per cent a year.
- Additional £2bn for social care.
- Spending on NHS and schools to be protected.
- Welfare measures to save £7bn.
- £1.8bn savings to public sector pensions.
- NHS to make £20bn ‘productivity’ savings by 2014.
Mr Osborne confirmed that the Office for Budget Responsibility had estimated that 490,000 jobs could go over the four years.
But he sought to reassure the public, saying: “Much of it will be achieved through natural turnover, by leaving posts unfilled as they become vacant. Estimates suggest a turnover rate of over eight per cent in the public sector.
“But yes, there will be some redundancies. . . that is unavoidable when the country has run out of money.
“We feel responsible for every individual who works for the Government, and we will always do everything we can to help them find alternative work.”
Yesterday, the full human cost of the painful process was laid bare when it emerged one in 10 civil servants will lose their jobs by 2014.
Another 500,000 workers are expected to be made redundant in private companies that rely on public sector contracts or grants.
Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander let slip the forecast of the cull when an open copy of the long-awaited Comprehensive Spending Review on his lap was captured by photographers, 24-hours before Mr Osborne began unravelling its details today – dubbed Axe Wednesday.
For Shropshire – including Telford & Wrekin – where one in three jobs is in the public sector, that could see upwards of 7,000 posts axed.
If one in ten of those were to lose their jobs, more than 7,000 people could be out of work. Branch secretary of Unison in Shropshire, Patricia Wilson, said: “The public sector is one of the largest employers in Shropshire. I don’t see that figure as scaremongering, it’s very close to what we would say.
“The thing about Shropshire is that we’ve been led to believe that these cuts will not impact on frontline services. But that’s absolutely rubbish. The public have to know that job losses will impact immediately on services.”
Mr Osborne said the Queen had agreed to a one year cash freeze in the Civil List for next year.
He added: “Going forward, she has also agreed that total Royal Household spending will fall by 14 per cent in 2012/13 while grants to the Household will be frozen in cash terms.”
The chancellor announced that people would have to work longer before they get their state pension.
He said the state pension age for men and women will reach 66 by the year 2020 – four years sooner than previously expected.
He said this would involve a gradual increase in the state pension age from 65 to 66, starting in 2018.
The move would save over £5 billion a year – “money which will be used to provide a more generous basic state pension as we manage demographic pressures”, he said.
The Chancellor pointedly observed that Gordon Brown was not in the Commons today.
He said “How ironic that it was the last Labour Prime Minister himself who once observed that the ‘public finances must be sustainable over the long term. If they are not then it is the poor . . . that will suffer most’.”
Mr Osborne added: “That’s why we are restoring order to our public finances before that is allowed to happen.”
As expected Mr Osborne confirmed that spending on the NHS, schools and overseas aid would be ring-fenced.
But he said spending on police would fall by four per cent each year. However, he added: “Our aim is to avoid any reduction in the visibility and availability of police in our streets.”
The chancellor turned his sights on Britain’s benefit bill, announcing a further £7 billion in cuts. But Mr Osborne pledged that low income families with children would be protected from the “adverse effect from these essential savings”.
One way this would be achieved, he said, was through an increase in the child element of the Child Tax Credit by a further £30 in 2011-12 and £50 in 2012-13 above inflation. He scotched speculation that it would be scrapped for all children over 16.
He also pledged to maintain universal benefits for pensioners.
By London Reporter Sunita Patel
Shropshire Star on Twitter
Keep updated with the latest breaking news and content on our Twitter feed.
Lifestyle
Interactive Dining Out map
Hundreds of reviews by the Shropshire Star and Express & Star's teams to help you decide where to eat.
Entertainment
All the film reviews
Before you plan a trip to the pictures, get our critics' verdicts on all the latest movie releases.
OUR NEW APP
Get the new Shropshire Star app
Download the Shropshire Star’s new app to your iPad or iPhone to get one week of access to our digital newspapers absolutely FREE.

There are a number of interesting hidden effects in this damaging attack on our public services.
Setting aside the shameful scapegoating of so many hard-working and often low paid public service employees to pay the costs the bankers left us with, we should also look at some of the social engineering going on here.
There is a plan to cap the level of housing benefit paid to some benefit claimants. The reason that such high amounts are sometimes paid is that certain geographical areas are more expensive to live in. They also tend to be areas where jobs are more readily avaiable.
So what will happen? Well, people will be forced to move out of the more expensive areas to cheaper areas, where they will have even less chance of finding a job. They will then provide a further burden on the local Council Tax payers who will find their payments increasing to cover the additional costs in local benefits.
So who benefits? Well, certainly not those in receipt of the housing benefit, nor the often low-paid workers and other Council Tax payers who live in the poorer towns around the UK. The only people who will benefit will be the Council Tax payers in the affluent, usually Tory councils where housing costs tend to be highest. It’s no coincidence that for years Kensington and Chelsea has had one of the lowest Council Tax rates in the country – people there need fewer services. Hardly fair for all then.
The Chancellor stated that the deficit had doubled in the latter part of the previous government. That’s just about true. But why was that? Well, the deficit at the point of handover was 62% of GDP. 30% of GDP, or nearly half of this w62% as directly as a result of bank nationalisation, which even the Tories belatedly admitted had to be done.
So yes, the deficit doubled, solely thanks to the greedy bankers. The ‘real’ level of deficit is about 32% of GDP. Anyone care to guess the percentage of GDP we had as debt in the late 1990′s when the Tories lost power to Labour? It was about the same – perhaps a few percentage points higher. So the suggestion of this being the worst debt ever is just nonsense.
The chancellor also indicated that he is investing money in chasing down some of the tax that goes unpaid by the wealthy. He hopes to get £7bn back. Sounds good doesn’t it? Except that estimates put the actual amount avoided as up to £120bn – it looks more like token gesture in that context.
Why isn’t he chasing the rich properly for their share – after all, aren’t we all supposed to be in this together? Would that risk upsetting his old schoolmates perhaps? Or even his own father who appears to have avoided £1.4m in inheritance tax if the Channel 4 Dispatches programme is to be believed the other night?
Report abuse
“Queen agrees to a one-year cash freeze in the Civil List for next year.
Whoopy doo!
Then
Pension age for men and women to be 66 by 2020 – four years earlier than planned.
500,000 state jobs to go over the next four years.
Structural deficit to be eliminated by 2015.
Police funding cut by four per cent a year.
Additional £2bn for social care.
Spending on NHS and schools to be protected.
Welfare measures to save £7bn.
£1.8bn savings to public sector pensions.
NHS to make £20bn ‘productivity’ savings by 2014.
We’re all in this together-not.
One rule for the rich and one rule for the vunerable.Disgusting.
What about slashing MP’s expenses?
Report abuse
Yes, the predictable response from a Marxist (Peter)who only sees everything apertaining to politics as a struggle between the rich and poor and the “class” issues that flow from there. No such thing as honesty or facts, merely a selective rant like mentioning Osborn’s father and Inheritance Tax. No such thing as relevance in Peters fevered mind – just bash those who are better off then he is. Well Peter, my next door neighbour is a stronger socialist than what you are, he altered his savings, wealth and house ownership into a “trust” some years ago to escape IT and other issues for his children. I did likewise by making sure that I provided for my son and daughter well within the 7 year rule and exploiting every tax advantage. Millions and millions of other people do the same. It is legal and above board, the Ch 4 Despatches were threatened with a law suit if they stepped over the line which they didn’t, indeed their opening gambit was words to the effect, “all that you will see and hear is legal”. Period, so a little bit more of slating the Tories to satisfy your own jealous/envious disposition. No person whatsoever named in that programme did anything at all which was illegal. Indeed if you have substantial funds and want some advice on protecting it against tax for you children let me know, it will all be legal. Another thing, having lived off the Fulham Road in South Kensington myself, I can assure you that the residents there require the same LA services as those in the surrounding Boroughs so again, a load of nonsense. Whether you admit it or not, Labour left this country almost crippled and on the brink so get used to it and accept the medicine that will correct that.
By the way, Cameron is in possession of a letter from Alistair Darling and Brown asking him not to make cuts more than 20% overall. What Osborne did this afternoon was to cut only 19% – what would you have to say if Labour were now in power and cutting 20%, would the “class” issue come into your comments again.
Report abuse
After hearing what this government has planned for the future, one wonders what would be the result if another election were to be held next week. The rich get richer and the poor get B8888R all AGAIN.
Report abuse