Shopping & Style15 mins ago
Why Are Austerity Measures Still In Place?
Traditionally the Conservatives always had the reputation for being financially prudent. During the 80s, we went through the pain of mass unemployment in order to get the economy sorted. Once we suffered the pain, the economy was stimulated with tax cuts, tax breaks for businesses etc.
Why after more than a decade since the last Labour government are we still living with austerity in place?
Why after more than a decade since the last Labour government are we still living with austerity in place?
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Austerity was always just an excuse for the Conservatives to cut public spending, which was ideological not economic in reason.
A limited period of evaluation of public finances was necessary for most countries after the crash. Most did a couple of years, and then began to stimulate growth again.
The UK Government have stuck with austerity for 8 years and the economy has flatlined. The high street is witnessing a collapse after retailer after retailer goes out of business. The reason for that is that a lot of people just do not have much money. They are Just About Managing, but that leaves nothing for non essentials, and the economy falters.
A limited period of evaluation of public finances was necessary for most countries after the crash. Most did a couple of years, and then began to stimulate growth again.
The UK Government have stuck with austerity for 8 years and the economy has flatlined. The high street is witnessing a collapse after retailer after retailer goes out of business. The reason for that is that a lot of people just do not have much money. They are Just About Managing, but that leaves nothing for non essentials, and the economy falters.
I don't think it is to save money. Debt has increased dramatically since the Tories came to power, and any meagre savings made from the public sector are easily overridden by our foreign policy ventures (see costs of Operation Shader and our airstrikes in Libya).
It seems far more likely to me that austerity is simply a good pretext to cut programs that some factions of the Tory party oppose on either ideological or self-interest grounds (see, for example, the recent efforts by DWP to prevent legitimate disability benefit claimants from receiving money they were wrongly denied). Every "austerity" cut always seems to come down on money that actually has a purpose and does some good, rather than the apparently endless army of pointless bureaucrats we're always hearing about. See, for example, 100ish job centres, 500 libraries, 350+ sure start centres, 20000ish police officers, almost 20 prisons, the list goes on.
The official line is that these things are all 'waste' and therefore unnecessary, but in far too many cases the closures are either replaced by private sector organisations which donate to the Tory party, or worse go unreplaced completely. They are, unsurprisingly, all things which an average Tory voter is unlikely to need or notice the absence of while praising the cuts to funding. Austerity looks to me very much like an exercise in political manoeuvering.
It seems far more likely to me that austerity is simply a good pretext to cut programs that some factions of the Tory party oppose on either ideological or self-interest grounds (see, for example, the recent efforts by DWP to prevent legitimate disability benefit claimants from receiving money they were wrongly denied). Every "austerity" cut always seems to come down on money that actually has a purpose and does some good, rather than the apparently endless army of pointless bureaucrats we're always hearing about. See, for example, 100ish job centres, 500 libraries, 350+ sure start centres, 20000ish police officers, almost 20 prisons, the list goes on.
The official line is that these things are all 'waste' and therefore unnecessary, but in far too many cases the closures are either replaced by private sector organisations which donate to the Tory party, or worse go unreplaced completely. They are, unsurprisingly, all things which an average Tory voter is unlikely to need or notice the absence of while praising the cuts to funding. Austerity looks to me very much like an exercise in political manoeuvering.
I wouldn’t mind austerity so much if the national debt was reducing. But it isn’t it is increasing.
Until we get all our foreign aid payments reduced to manageable levels and stop paying billions into the EU for no return and allow everyone to leech of the state and not be self sufficient we will always be further and further 8n debt.
Until we get all our foreign aid payments reduced to manageable levels and stop paying billions into the EU for no return and allow everyone to leech of the state and not be self sufficient we will always be further and further 8n debt.
So, austerity is either a smokescreen or we are so massively in debt that we have years more of austerity to pay it off.
But...why not implement a series of stimulus programmes to get the economy moving? And why are we so much in debt anyway? Is it the war on terror or the financial meltdown from the early 00s?
But...why not implement a series of stimulus programmes to get the economy moving? And why are we so much in debt anyway? Is it the war on terror or the financial meltdown from the early 00s?
I think economic stimulus has been going on for a while now. Perhaps that’s why we have the lowest unemployment rate for years.
There is no doubt we are in massive debt. Just look at what it is right now and your eyes might water.
People insist on the state paying them ever increasing amounts of money in cash terms and services. Forever wanting better this or that and the state must pay. when it comes to paying for it the majority either don’t pay enough tax or in a large proportion no tax. So were does the money come from to pay for your better this and that? Borrowing.
Gone are the days where you had to provide for yourself and your family. Gone are the days of self sufficiency. And where I wholeheartedly agree the people, through the state, look after the most vulnerable in society. The term ‘most vulnerable’ has been stretched to breaking point.
There is no doubt we are in massive debt. Just look at what it is right now and your eyes might water.
People insist on the state paying them ever increasing amounts of money in cash terms and services. Forever wanting better this or that and the state must pay. when it comes to paying for it the majority either don’t pay enough tax or in a large proportion no tax. So were does the money come from to pay for your better this and that? Borrowing.
Gone are the days where you had to provide for yourself and your family. Gone are the days of self sufficiency. And where I wholeheartedly agree the people, through the state, look after the most vulnerable in society. The term ‘most vulnerable’ has been stretched to breaking point.
If you look at the history of UK debt, it was about average for an OECD country before late 2007/2008, then shot up.
https:/
(this graph is somewhat accentuated by the fact that the UK went into recession in '08-'09 and it expresses debt as a GDP %, but the effect is much the same if you look at raw numbers).
No prizes for guessing why. The bailout which became necessary during the great recession - and the inherent costs of a shrinking economy - vastly, vastly outweigh anything else and we're still living with it. Of course, the fact that we constantly follow the USA into extremely expensive (and ultimately pointless) military ventures does not help at all, and easily outdoes any "efficiency savings" made by shutting down libraries or fire stations or taking benefits from disabled people.
Foreign Aid (which usually comes up at this point) is of course a potential saving, but is a bit of a different discussion which would be better served on another thread. For present purposes though it is effectively small change in the wider context we are talking about here. If the UK's foreign aid budget were zero it would have just the same problems as it does now.
https:/
(this graph is somewhat accentuated by the fact that the UK went into recession in '08-'09 and it expresses debt as a GDP %, but the effect is much the same if you look at raw numbers).
No prizes for guessing why. The bailout which became necessary during the great recession - and the inherent costs of a shrinking economy - vastly, vastly outweigh anything else and we're still living with it. Of course, the fact that we constantly follow the USA into extremely expensive (and ultimately pointless) military ventures does not help at all, and easily outdoes any "efficiency savings" made by shutting down libraries or fire stations or taking benefits from disabled people.
Foreign Aid (which usually comes up at this point) is of course a potential saving, but is a bit of a different discussion which would be better served on another thread. For present purposes though it is effectively small change in the wider context we are talking about here. If the UK's foreign aid budget were zero it would have just the same problems as it does now.
The problem is that so called 'austerity measures' were nowhere near tough enough to cope with the legacy left by labour. There are two reasons for this, firstly that when in bed with the liberals there was no chance of it happening and secondly that the current incumbents are not proper Tories especially May and Hammond so it aint going to happen either.
//Austerity was always just an excuse for the Conservatives to cut public spending,// All fine words except they havnt scratched the surface of public waste and excess spending have they?
//Austerity was always just an excuse for the Conservatives to cut public spending,// All fine words except they havnt scratched the surface of public waste and excess spending have they?
"Why after more than a decade since the last Labour government are we still living with austerity in place?"
Firstly, it isn't more than a decade since there was a Labour government. The Coalition took over following the General Election on 6th May 2010. But that minor bit of pedantry aside, what "austerity" are you speaking of?
Since 2010 the government has spent an average of £93bn more per annum than it raised in taxes. High earners are now paying a greater proportion of their earnings in taxes than they were in 2010. How much more should the government had borrowed to spend. The annual deficit is now down to "only" about £40bn per annum and the country is in debt to the tune of over £1 trillion. Are you suggesting even more money should be borrowed to be spent by the government?
Firstly, it isn't more than a decade since there was a Labour government. The Coalition took over following the General Election on 6th May 2010. But that minor bit of pedantry aside, what "austerity" are you speaking of?
Since 2010 the government has spent an average of £93bn more per annum than it raised in taxes. High earners are now paying a greater proportion of their earnings in taxes than they were in 2010. How much more should the government had borrowed to spend. The annual deficit is now down to "only" about £40bn per annum and the country is in debt to the tune of over £1 trillion. Are you suggesting even more money should be borrowed to be spent by the government?
1 to 19 of 19
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.