As the last set-piece political event before the General Election, this Budget was said to have more riding on it than normal. But the same has been true for previous pre-election Budgets as well. How effective they are is questionable, and they rarely, if ever, change the election result.
Sky have done a summary of previous pre-election Budgets and what is clear is that their ‘giveaway’ status can be questioned. Lawson was certainly radical in 1987 but Labour was always extremely unlikely to win that election.
Osborne this time around tried to focus on the positives from the last five years, and the promises of better times to come rather than engaging in large-scale ‘bribes’. That approach would have fundamentally undermined his whole economic narrative. It would also have been counter to the Conservatives’ approach to the campaign to date which has been focused on keeping things steady, not alienating people, and not taking any risks.
What we should also remember is that this Parliament is different, it is fixed term. That means we 100% knew there would be one last Budget before the election. The same has rarely been true in the past. Unless we were creeping right to the last possible moment when an election could be called, such as in 1997, there was always an element of uncertainty.
Reginald Maudling had tried to ‘dash for growth’ in 1963 so that everyone would feel the benefits by an election which needed to take place in 1964 by the latest (the Conservatives having been elected in 1959). If it had gone to plan, and Profumo had not intervened, then maybe he would not have needed to take action to damp down an overheating economy in another Budget in 1964.
Norman Lamont’s Budget in 1992 could count as a possible exception. The Conservatives, against the odds, pulled off a win when many expected Labour to win. Whether the Budget was more important than John Major and his soapbox is a moot point.
Politicians are however, conscious of being seen as desperate. Great giveaways are rarely the sign of a stable or well-functioning government. Instead, the last Budget before an election is a culmination and representation of the economic approach adopted during a whole Parliament. Recent Chancellors have also been in their position for longer periods of time. Again this means that Budgets, taken together, tell a narrative. That narrative often changes when the personnel changes allowing new policies to be introduced. The stability of personnel has meant that the policies and approach have tended to be more stable, whether you like them or not.
Reaction to the Budget will fill airtime, online coverage and column inches but whether it will change many votes come May is doubtful. If you like the economic policies and approach of the Conservatives then the Budget will have reinforced that support. If you don’t, then the Budget will have done little to change your mind either.
When Osborne has previously tried making changes there has often been a reaction in the days that followed – think Bedroom Tax, Pasty Tax or Granny Tax. There were no such chances this time around, and that would well be the model for fixed term Parliament pre-election Budgets of the future. We will be able to tell come March 2020.