The end of austerity is in sight, but our ageing population remains a ticking time bomb

There’s a delicious irony in today's Tory Party touting plans that will 'reverse the Thatcher revolution on the public finances' in expanding the state to a size that may even exceed what was in the 1970s

Both the main parties are promising to turn on the spending taps. But they're avoiding some harsh realities such as Britain's demographic time bomb (iStock)

We’re going to see a lot of detailed reports and analysis about the main parties’ spending plans in the run up to the general election. The Resolution Foundation got in early with a report that says the state looks set to increase to a size not seen since the 1970s before any of the manifestos are even out.

The mere mention of that decade used to be deployed to scare people contemplating voting Labour, what with the "Winter of Discontent" and all that. It was a staple of Conservative campaigning until it retreated into the mists of history.

There’s a delicious irony in today's Tory Party, led as it is by a group of nostalgic Thatcherites, touting plans that will, according to the report, “reverse the Thatcher revolution on the public finances” in expanding the state to a size that may even exceed what was seen during the era of platform shoes, punk rock, and the three day week.

Nonetheless, the commitment to turn on the taps on the part of both parties is broadly to be welcomed.

A decade of austerity has left Britain’s public services teetering on the brink. Ditto its infrastructure.Thanks to Brexit, the economy is in a funk and the Tories look set to make it worse.

Whatever the colour of the administration that emerges from the election, be it red, blue or rainbow hued, UK plc is going to need support from the occupant of Number 11 Downing Street. With the fiscal rules that kept the lid firmly on spending expiring, and neither of the big two apparently minded to replace them, it looks set to get it.

A couple of points made by the report are, however, worth highlighting. The first is that they’re both of them being very woolly about where the money’s going to come from.

Boris Johnson has promised expensive tax cuts for the rich as well as more spending. Perhaps he’s found the "magic money tree" Theresa May said didn’t exist (except in Northern Ireland when she needed the DUP’s votes).

Labour has been fairly consistent about the need for tax increases, targeted at the wealthy and corporations, for the still more ambitious plans it has trailed. Its critics point to a fiscal black one within them.

Both are inevitably going to end up borrowing more. That isn't the worst thing in the world at a time when interest rates are at rock bottom levels and don’t look set to increase by much anytime soon. The question of sustainability will, however, inevitably be raised.

Another one should be asked of the Conservative Party: what was the point of all that austerity you said we needed, and the decade of lost economic growth that came with it. Care to answer? No? Thought not.

Anyhoo, here’s the point the report makes that’s worth taking home and pondering. The state may expand in size to 1970s levels under whichever of the main parties you choose. But it’s going to be very different in character.

There’s going to be a lot more spending on old age and health than there was back then. The population is appreciably older, and the older you get the more health conditions you acquire.

“Absent any change in approach in relation to other aspects of spending, overall government expenditure would need to continue rising as a share of GDP in order to meet increasing health and pension demand,” Resolution says. “That is, even before accounting for any spending promises set out by the next government as part of its election campaign.”

Quite so. Can anyone tell me how you spell “demographic time bomb”? How about "intergenerational fairness" which has been conspicuously absent during the austerity years given that the brunt of spending cuts have been borne by the young.

Neither party really seems minded to face up to these issues, or to the impact that an ageing population will have. Eventually, they’re going to have to. It’s not as if they haven’t been warned.