Q. How did George Osborne end up borrowing FOUR TIMES more than he said he would?


A. His spending cuts crushed economic growth, meaning that in 2015-16 tax revenue fell short of expectations by £85bn.

New analysis from the Office for Budgetary Responsibility (OBR) carefully details exactly how Osborne managed to end up with this colossal failure to stick to his original plans:

We start … with the June 2010 forecast for public sector net borrowing of £17.6bn for financial year 2015-16.

We then subtract £22.6bn, for a windfall gain on the government’s debt interest payments.

These follow because of lower than expected global interest rates (lo and behold, financial markets were not so spooked by public debt as we were told) and also because the government (sensibly) insisted that the Bank of England return to the Treasury interest payments on debt held through the quantitative easing programme.

17.6 – 22.6 = -5

We subtract £6bn for welfare spend coming in lower than planned.

The OBR single out in particular the government moving uprating of this type of spending to CPI, which as we all know is significantly lower than the RPI.

-5 – 6.0 = -11

We then make small negative adjustments for RDEL and CDEL, which are peculiar acronyms for departmental spending.

-11 – (0.6 x 2) = -12.2

These… are positive benefits to the government budget (though plainly not society at large). Then come the bits that have cost the government more.

The first is +£3.9bn on ‘Other spending’.

The OBR say this is mainly “higher borrowing financed capital spending by local authorities”. In a sane world this would be greatly larger; the government should allow local authorities to lead on capital spending to strengthen the economy.

-12.2 + 3.9 = -8.3

And then, finally, ‘Receipts’, LOWER THAN EXPECTED BY £84.8 BILLION.

-8.3 + 84.8 = 76.5

We therefore arrive at the OBR figure for total borrowing in 2015/16 of £76.5bn, from the starting point of £17.6bn. The outcome is £58.9bn (or 4.3 times) more than expected in 2010.

This … constitutes the case against the government. The case that austerity policies are self-defeating.

And this is the pattern every year. Rounding to the nearest £10bn (the OBR don’t give these details in cash figures, so I am going broad brush), targets were missed by £30bn in 2012-13, £40bn in 2013-14, £50 billion in 2014-15, all ahead of the £60bn in 2015-16. Cumulatively: ‘180’.

The cumulative position feeds through to public debt; as a share of GDP, public debt has risen relentlessly, when the whole purpose of policy was to have it fall. (And this is in spite of a fire sale extending to more and more public assets.)

As we have repeatedly argued, government spending cuts have hit the economy much harder than was expected.

Source: Q. How did George Osborne end up borrowing FOUR TIMES more than he said he would?


Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:


12 thoughts on “Q. How did George Osborne end up borrowing FOUR TIMES more than he said he would?

  1. Michael Broadhurst

    worst Chancellor and Prime Minister we’ve ever had,totally incompetent.
    all waffle and no action Cameron,and cut everything Osbourne

  2. tom

    Mr Osborne criticized Mr Brown for spending £4.00 to produce £1.00 IN 2010.
    Today after 6 years the chancellor Mr Osborne left office with spending £6.50 to produce £1.00.
    The result is that he has doubled the debt.
    That is his legacy for future generations including the ones who are not yet born.

  3. Anna Zimmerman

    If anyone wants to understand the theoretical failings behind Osborne’s incompetence, the best source is Mark Blyth’s book ‘Austerity: A History of a Dangerous Idea.’ If you don’t have time for the book, he’s all over the internet with articles and interviews!

  4. Anthony Haynes

    Also, Austerity took money away from the poorest, and gave it to the richest, now the poorest tend to spend the money they get, well through necessity as much as anything else. this money then washes around the economy being spent again and again, meanwhile the extremely rich might buy some some extra luxuries but on the whole will squirrel away all that extra cash, maybe taking it offshore and are certainly more likely to avoid paying tax on it.

  5. Brian

    Osborne seems to have achieved what Hitler sought with counterfeit currency in 1945, without really trying. Perhaps an attachment of earnings would be appropriate.

  6. mohandeer

    Without decent wages and people in F/T employment(not zero hours, P/T and barely scraping by self employed) and no investment, taking into account the cost of these “Welfare Reforms” – UC is approximately £24 billion and the HB bill is now exorbitant despite cuts because so many waged people are bringing home so little, they qualify for HB – all in all, a recipe any dolt could recognise as a disaster.
    Osborne was always clueless and borrowed under QE billions just to hide his cock ups, but he doesn’t have to lose out, the rest of us idiots do.
    Taxation without earnings is not an option so what is?
    Actually, that would be McDonnells plan as suggested in Corbynomics back in 2015!

Comments are closed.