LABOUR have been warned their plans to cut billions from government budgets are “Liz Truss levels of economic vandalism”.
In a letter to Rachel Reeves, the SNP have urged the Chancellor to back down from plans to trim up to 10% from departmental budgets.
Dave Doogan, the party’s economy spokesperson, said: “The scale of such cuts would not only amount to a blatant betrayal of the ‘change’ the Labour Party promised voters a matter of months ago – they would also amount to Liz Truss levels of economic vandalism.”
It follows a report in The Guardian that Reeves (below) has demanded her Cabinet colleagues find as much as 10% of capital spending in their departments to be axed as part of this month’s spending review.
It comes despite her previous pledges to invest more public money to grow the economy.
Cuts could involve cancelling or delaying hospital improvements, road building and defence projects, the paper reported.
Labour have claimed they inherited a £22 billion spending black hole from the Tories, which would force them to borrow more.
READ MORE: Anas Sarwar left red-faced over 'more capital investment' pledge
Darren Jones (below), the Treasury Chief Secretary, is said to have recently set out “indicative budgets” to give departments a sense of the scale of the cuts they will be required to make this financial year and next.
Experts have warned against making cuts on the scale expected and have called on the Government to ditch its “absurd” fiscal rules requiring ministers to get debt falling.
Crossbench peer Gus O'Donnell, a former senior civil servant and economist and Glasgow University, wrote in the Financial Times last week that “borrowing should also be part of the answer” to the Government’s desire to boost economic growth.
He said: “One problem with the current debt definition is that it doesn’t recognise the assets that might be purchased or created through investment.
READ MORE: Anas Sarwar slated for broken promise on capital spending
“If the new National Wealth Fund leverages its balance sheet to buy a stake in a green energy start-up, the current rule counts the debt but not the value of the financial asset.
“Nor does the current debt rule reflect the value of any new transport infrastructure produced by government investment.”
It has previously been reported that Reeves is looking at ways to fiddle the fiscal rules to wipe some debt off the government’s books by re-defining it.
Doogan (above) said: “For Scotland and our devolved budget, which has already had its capital budget slashed by 9%, these additional Westminster austerity cuts are a direct attack on our ability to grow our economy and invest in key capital projects – whether that's housing, hospitals, schools, green energy or transport infrastructure.
“The UK Labour Government's austerity plans also fly in the face of the prevailing economic wisdom.”
READ MORE: Lord Alli under investigation for 'failing to declare' business dealings
He pointed to the comments from Lord O'Donnell and to remarks from Andy Haldane, the former chief economist at the Bank of England, who argued the Government should pay down its debt by “growing your economy, and that requires investment”.
Doogan added: “It’s time for the Labour Party to listen to some expert advice instead of copying and pasting Tory policy.”
The SNP argued that Labour’s “miserable” message which saw Keir Starmer promise voters “pain” in the upcoming Budget was depressing consumer confidence.
Doogan highlighted reports from Labour conference, where it was suggested Reeves could alter the fiscal rules and added: “It's time to stop the damaging mixed messaging, put the austerity axe down, finally ditch the Tory fiscal rules and deliver on the promises of investment you made to voters at the general election.”
Labour were approached for comment.
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