The truth behind the Tory-Labour spending row is that neither party is getting it right

A few days ago it was reported that the head of the civil service, Sir Mark Sedwill, refused to allow independent impartial British civil servants to produce Conservative Party propaganda. It was a brave decision, because this government, more than most, tends towards vindictiveness, and the prime minister’s principal adviser, Dominic Cummings, holds the institution in the deepest contempt. Sir Mark may therefore find himself suffering some personal discomfort as a result of his stance.

The chancellor, Sajid Javid, was reportedly furious at such impudence by a mere official, a member of the fabled “unelected elite”. Sir Mark may in due course be replaced by “one of us”, as a previous generation of Tory supremacists used to say. Much the same, by the way, may be expected when the next governor of the Bank of England is appointed in the coming months, should the Tories gain a majority at the election.

No matter. The Conservatives went ahead anyway and came up with a very large number indeed – £1.2 trillion – for Labour’s spending plans over a period of some years, whether they happen to be official policy or not. It is the sort of number that might look good stuck on the side of a bus, were the electors not somewhat sceptical about such things, based on recent experience. Their dossier on Labour is rather audacious given that their own fiscal plans are as ambitious, and unaffordable, as Labour’s in 2017 – condemned as “magic money tree” economics by the now forgotten Theresa May.

The Tories plainly thought they should get their version of events out before the Labour manifesto is published in a matter of days. The shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, has promised the pledges will be “fully costed”, which is a rubbery but usefully impressive sounding phrase used by politicians who know that fiscal numbers rarely if ever add up, even in good times.

That is not to say that Labour's plans are beyond query and reproach. Much of the case made for higher public spending by both parties is that such “investment” (whether truly investment or just a polite word for income transfers) necessarily means an impressive return on the money borrowed. This is not always self-evident, and there is far too much emphasis on the “arms race” in spending pledges, and far too little attention on how effectively such vast sums can be spent so rapidly on actual improved services.

What must be especially galling for Labour is that the Conservatives are so confident about another party’s figures while refusing to unveil their own. When Kwasi Kwarteng bleats to Sophy Ridge on Sky News that he doesn’t want to “bandy about” his own party’s numbers while fantasising about Labour’s he makes his party look more foolish than usual. The public can draw their own conclusions from these charades.

The truth is that, if anything, Labour is (marginally) more credible than the Tories because they have also promised tax increases to fund part of the splurge. The Tories, by contrast, will be aiming for substantial cuts in tax and national insurance bills – and have refused to say what they will spend more than one year out. How deliverable these tax cuts are must be doubtful – given a slowing global and UK economy.

Like battle plans, few fiscal ones survive their first skirmish with reality, whichever party is in power. Tax cuts and spending splurges are easily reversed, post-election. It is an old trick.

The hazards faced by any chancellor now are of historic proportions. Brexit – still an unknown quantity – will ensure GDP growth and tax revenues will be depressed (compared to staying in the EU) whoever takes power. So there will be unknowns about global trade wars, Chinese growth, gyrations in the oil price, the costs of climate change and so on. The UK’s credit rating has been downgraded even under a Tory government – and may be further reduced.

Promises on borrowing have rarely been honoured. Under Gordon Brown’s chancellorship we were told he had ended boom and bust. Under the coalition’s plans, the British government budget should by now be well into surplus. That achievement remains some years away. The last government to run a budget surplus was in fact a Labour one, and a debt repayment is rare indeed. There are no votes in it.

All the voters can do in such circumstances is to trust to the general image of the parties for economic competence, and exercise maximum scepticism. At the moment all the parties are flirting with reckless spending and borrowing plans. It is a dangerous game, but a rewarding one electorally given the public’s demands. Some might call it “cakeism”.

Those remaining fans of fiscal conservatism and those who would prefer their government to pay down debt rather than add to it have no one left to vote for. On the whole there is little political mood for that, even though the national debt is in fact at historically high levels, with little room for manoeuvre in the event of a protracted recession or banking crisis. The political and fiscal pendulum has swung far from austerity, or even prudence.