Last week Chancellor Alistair Darling warned us not to expect a giveaway in next week's Budget, while his Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Liam Byrne, reassured us that the Government could halve the deficit by 2013-14 without announcing any further tax increases. If both statements prove correct - no pre-election tax giveaway and no new post-election tax takeaway - then this would break the pattern of the last four general elections.
"Whoever wins the election, Labour or Conservative, is going to have to cut spending. That is not something that Margaret Thatcher actually did. So tougher than Margaret Thatcher." So said George Osborne on the Today Programme this morning - and the numbers by and large bear him out.
The Treasury's plans for public spending would require spending by central government on public services to be cut in real terms by 8.6% in 2013-14 compared to 2010-11. Is this too much or too little, and how should the pain be shared? A new tool, DIY Spending Review, that can be downloaded as an Excel spreadsheet enables you to carry your own "Spending Review 2010".
There is a lot we do not yet know about how Labour and the Conservatives would go about repairing Britain's battered public finances over the next few years. But yesterday's speeches by David Cameron and Alistair Darling at least highlight a sharp difference of opinion over what should be done next year. Yet the picture is quite not as straightforward as either makes out.
Starting with a look at historical funding for the NHS, The King's Fund and the Institute for Fiscal Studies set out three plausible future funding scenarios and their consequences.
In Prime Minister's Questions this week Gordon Brown and David Cameron clashed over the Government's plans for spending on investment in public services. So how do the plans for investment spending going forwards compare to Labour's record to date and to that of previous Conservative Governments?
