Leaked remarks from shadow chancellor Andrew Griffith have laid bare the scale of the Conservative Party’s ambition to shrink the state, revealing that senior figures have privately discussed spending reductions far exceeding the £47 billion already pledged. Speaking to party members last autumn, when he still held the business brief, Griffith said the shadow cabinet had agreed it would “need to go further” across every department if the Tories return to power.
The comments, surfacing on the eve of the Conservative conference in Birmingham, frame the next election as a referendum on the size of government not seen since the Osborne years. They also expose a widening philosophical gulf between Kemi Badenoch’s vision of a leaner, lower-tax state and the interventionist agenda being pursued by Prime Minister Andy Burnham.
The £47 billion floor, not the ceiling
Griffith’s language was unambiguous. “There are decisions made and signed up to by everybody to deliver that £47 bn,” he told the meeting. “Last week at the shadow cabinet, we talked about [how] we will need to go further. The rate at which the economy is deteriorating, as well as our ambition to cut more taxes, means that we will have to find further savings, and I’m up for that in my department. I know there are areas that we can make savings, and that’s true of every every part of government.”
The shadow chancellor added that the drive was a “moral mission to get our economy growing, give people opportunity, as well as let people keep more of what they earn.”
A party spokesperson did not dispute the account. “Under Kemi Badenoch’s leadership, the Conservatives have consistently advocated for a smaller state and a government that does fewer things but better,” the statement read. “In Birmingham, we will go further, setting out further savings to Labour’s bloated welfare bill and cracking down on wasteful spending as part of our plans to build a stronger economy and a stronger country.”
Blueprint for a leaner machine
The £47 billion figure, unveiled earlier in Badenoch’s tenure, rests on four main pillars: restricting welfare for non‑British and non‑EU citizens; axing 132,000 civil service posts for an £8 billion saving; scrapping the bulk of Labour’s clean energy programme (£1.6 billion); and slashing the international aid budget by more than £7 billion.
Last week the leader added a further £4 billion to the tally. The aid budget would be cut to just £1 billion a year, releasing £2.5 billion, while the Department for Culture, Media and Sport would lose £1 billion. Half of the new savings are earmarked for 50,000 additional prison places; the other half would go toward deficit reduction.
Griffith’s own trajectory underscores the seriousness of the project. Promoted to shadow chancellor in August after a stint as shadow business secretary, he served as a Treasury minister under Kwasi Kwarteng and was dispatched to defend the 2022 mini‑budget as markets convulsed. His elevation signals that the fiscal hawks are now setting the pace.
Burnham’s counter‑offer: the state strikes back
While Badenoch channels Margaret Thatcher — “She brought a lot of wealth and prosperity to this country… privatisation was a success” — the Prime Minister is betting on a very different compact. Andy Burnham has pledged a national care service, public ownership of utilities, and a raft of industrial interventions designed to end what he calls “40 years of neoliberalism.”
The contrast could hardly be starker. Badenoch argues that Burnham running water companies is not the answer to infrastructure decay; Burnham insists that the market has failed to deliver resilience or fairness. Polls currently place the Conservatives third, behind Labour and Reform UK, though Badenoch’s personal approval has recovered over the past year.
Why it Matters
If the leaked conversation reflects settled strategy, the next Conservative manifesto would amount to the most aggressive retrenchment of public spending since the early 2010s — only this time without the cover of a global financial crisis. The promise of tax cuts funded by “every part of government” raises immediate questions about the viability of frontline services, from courts to local councils, already stretched thin. For voters, the choice crystallises: a state that does less for less, or one that does more for more. The answer will shape Britain’s social contract for a generation.
