The motivations underpinning the Autumn Statement yesterday have roots deep in 19th century Conservatism; roots that should encourage all those who want to see the incomes of the poorest rise. 

The Chancellor’s Autumn Statement drew predictable cries of horror from the left. One theme stood out amidst the subsequent 140-character-condemnations – that George Osborne’s reduction in the proportion of state spending is unparalleled in modern political history and marks a return to an older, more uncaring political tradition. Gordon Brown speaking before the Statement (and failing to forecast the Chancellor’s change of tack on tax credits) made the point explicit, condemning the introduction of policies “more akin to the Victorian times”. 

It’s a narrative now established on the left, that public spending reductions constitute a return to the politics of Ebenezer Scrooge – the lives of the poorest diminished in order to enhance the ledgers of uncaring coin-counters. A return to vengeful Victoriana. 

There is a truth here, albeit one submerged in false historical memory. Beneath the pastiche of a Victorian elite pursuing fiscal health at the expense of social conscience is a more nuanced truth – that the leading politicians of Victoria’s reign doggedly pursued a twin-track economic policy of reducing both the deficit and the living costs of working people. 

It was a dual policy established by the early Victorian figurehead of liberal Toryism, Robert Peel. Peel took office in 1841 in the midst of a prolonged recession, inheriting a considerable budget deficit from an unrepentant former administration. He instigated a programme of fiscal retrenchment, which swiftly bore results. Peel was quick to stress that the proceeds of economic stability should first be used to reduce the burden of taxation on the poorest, in the form of cutting taxation on items of mass consumption. Customs duties on 750 imports, including beef cattle and other popular foodstuffs, were lowered in the interests of “public welfare”. 

Following Peel’s early death these principles were set into the very stones of the Treasury, embodied in the craggy form of its master, William Gladstone, Peel’s greatest disciple. Gladstone’s many stints as Chancellor saw him display an awesome capacity to produce budgets that piled surplus upon surplus whilst taking penny after penny off popular foodstuffs. His 1863 budget was typical, offering a £3.7 million surplus up to the House of Commons and lower taxes on tea and tobacco up to the houses of the nation. Such largesse was, as Gladstone was quick to remind his peers, only possible because the nation’s finances had, after strenuous effort, been put into good order and remained so.

Sounds familiar? The commitment of David Cameron’s Conservatives to balance the books, whilst cutting the cost of living, is an approach that Peel and Gladstone would have recognised. 

The parallels extend to policy impact. As Victoria’s reign reached its apex the stabilising economy and falling cost of living, secured by the policies of Peel and Gladstone, had a transformative impact on the lives of ordinary people. In an age when the cost of food could amount to 70% of a working family’s weekly expenditure, cheaper food changed everything. Between 1801 and 1831 income per head in Britain rose by just 0.14 percent. Between 1831 and 1870 it increased by 1.32 percent. In the 1830s the average Briton consumed 1799 calories a day. By the 1860s this had increased to 2424 calories a day. 

By the 1870s the standard of living of the average working family was considerably better than it had been half a century before. All this in a period when the proportion of state spending fell. If the past five years are anything to go by, we could be in for a similar step forward. Median incomes have risen back up to the pre-2008 levels and income inequality has fallen, whilst state spending has decreased.

Of course history is a guide, not a prophet. David Cameron and George Osborne face challenges that their be-whiskered predecessors would struggle to fathom, not least the need to continue to protect the welfare state that sustains those in need in our society. And yet the Victorian experience offers a hopeful precedent – that with care and dogged commitment a stabilised economy and a reduced cost of living can lift up the poorest.

So yes, the Government’s economic policy does have a Victorian hue. And progressives everywhere should be thankful for it. 

Matt Browne is an Associate at Bright Blue and tweets @MattRCBrowne