|
|
Post by Carl LaFong on Sept 10, 2023 9:23:54 GMT
This endless week of crumbling schools, prison cuts and collapsing council finances has been 13 years in the making – and even loyal Tories now know the game is up. It is now a year since the short, disastrous premiership of Liz Truss. But when Rishi Sunak entered the House of Commons on Wednesday, politics at Westminster seemed just as disconnected from reality as during her chaotic 50-day tenure inside No 10. Tory backbenchers and ministers greeted Sunak, after their long summer break, with customary roars as he took his seat for prime minister’s questions. The more difficulty their leader is in these days, the more noise they seem to make. Quite why they were in such good voices must have been a mystery to any objective onlooker. In the week when pupils returned to class for the new school year, the government had just shamefacedly published a list of 147 state schools in England whose buildings were in danger of collapsing (having previously refused to name those affected). Many of the schools are in Tory constituencies. Classrooms, assembly halls, dining rooms and corridors were cordoned off before term began, and returning children found themselves shunted into temporary “safe spaces”, wherever these could be found. George Osborne, the former Tory chancellor and architect of austerity, used to accuse his Labour predecessors of “failing to mend the roof while the sun was shining”. But after 13 years of the cost-cutting he initiated, much of the school estate is in danger of total collapse. Former civil servants said the fault lay with politicians who wanted to save money rather than pay for repairs. As policy disasters go, it was up there with the worst. … www.theguardian.com/business/2023/sep/10/how-austerity-and-ideology-broke-britain |
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Sept 10, 2023 9:34:42 GMT
Guardian.
|
|
|
|
Post by Carl LaFong on Sept 10, 2023 9:35:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Sept 10, 2023 9:48:02 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Sept 10, 2023 11:33:31 GMT
This is the 'austerity' that has seen public spending increase each and every single one of those 13 years, from £700 billion on 2010 to £1,200 billion in 2023.
Whoever calls this 'austerity', whatever side of the political divide they come from, is a fucking moron who hasn't even the faintest idea what the word actually means.
|
|
|
|
Post by Carl LaFong on Sept 10, 2023 12:09:28 GMT
This is the 'austerity' that has seen public spending increase each and every single one of those 13 years, from £700 billion on 2010 to £1,200 billion in 2023. Whoever calls this 'austerity', whatever side of the political divide they come from, is a fucking moron who hasn't even the faintest idea what the word actually means. £1,134bn in 2023. £700bn in today’s prices is about £1,170bn adviser.royallondon.com/technical-central/rates-and-factors/retail-prices-index/Population has increased by 7.7% since 2010. So I make it that real public spending per capita has reduced by 10% since 2010. |
|
|
|
Post by yggdrasil on Sept 10, 2023 12:50:03 GMT
This is the 'austerity' that has seen public spending increase each and every single one of those 13 years, from £700 billion on 2010 to £1,200 billion in 2023. Whoever calls this 'austerity', whatever side of the political divide they come from, is a fucking moron who hasn't even the faintest idea what the word actually means. I think a "fucking moron" would be a person who refuses to understand what is meant by "real terms cuts". Public spending could raise by 1 penny a year and still be a rise yet wouldn't make it something to argue that "austerity" is in force. We see this in strikes where some wages have stagnated by 35% in real terms. People and services cannot survive when a purposely managed decline is in place. How much is down to what is arguable, and certainly ideology is involved with the on going slow attempt to creep to privatisation by slowly undermining the NHS, but general incompetence of the Conservative Government certainly plays a part, from the costly Brexit (4% GDP), when a sensible Brexit could have been attained, and Liz Truss' suicidal budget stripping 60+ billion from the economy. However one looks at it, the Conservatives have managed in 13 years to destroy their reputation of being safe with the economy and a change of Government is urgently needed and even most Conservatives I know accept this now, they are bereft of ideas and not even seemingly interested any more in the business of Government with so many now stepping down as they don't fancy the unprofitable job of "opposition". |
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Sept 10, 2023 12:57:53 GMT
So I make it that real public spending per capita has reduced by 10% since 2010. Two can play at that game. In 2010 public spending was 47.14% of GDP, 16th highest of the OECD nations. In 2021 (the latest year available in the OECD website) it was 48.41% of GDP, 13th highest of the OECD nations, above Norway, Netherlands, USA, Japan, Australia and Switzerland. This. Is. NOT. Austerity.
If spending per capita is down, it is because output per capita is down, because we have become a nation of entitled recipients of government largesse, with 54% of our population now receiving more money from the state than they pay in. Of course, you won't read any of that in the Guardian or the Observer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2023 11:59:00 GMT
I think looking at the overall public spending figure doesn't tell the whole story. Looking at it by sector: | Sector | 09/10 spend (billions) | 22/23 (billions) | Change | | Health | 156 | 222 | 42% increase | | Social protection | 298 | 319 | 7% increase | | Defense | 50 | 56 | 12% increase | | Public order and safety | 46 | 44 | 4% decrease | | Education | 118 | 107 | 9% decrease | | Economic affairs | 65 | 125 | 92% increase | | Housing and community | 22 | 18 | 18% decrease | | Environment | 14 | 14 | Even | | Recreation, culture and religion | 18 | 14 | 22% decrease |
Source: www.statista.com/topics/3842/uk-government-spending/#statisticChapter So, economic affairs has by far the biggest % increase in public spending - something which doesn't particularly focus on the poor. It along with Health saw a massive increase in spending due to Covid which hasn't quite come back down yet. Meanwhile three sectors that are of particular benefit to poor people - Education, Housing and Community Amenities and Recreation, Culture and Religion - all had significant spending decreases. And even that doesn't tell the full story - during the height of the austerity years (ie the second Cameron term), there were massive drops on spending on public order and safety, and housing and community - which of course has a knock on effect that later increases to spending struggle to remedy. So, yes I would say austerity is a thing and it has had a detrimental effect on the poorest. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2023 12:09:05 GMT
If spending per capita is down, it is because output per capita is down, because we have become a nation of entitled recipients of government largesse, with 54% of our population now receiving more money from the state than they pay in. Of course, you won't read any of that in the Guardian or the Observer. That strikes me more as a justification for austerity rather than a denial that it is happening. That argument was Cameron's initial justification for austerity in the first place - the UK is poorer now so we must all 'do our bit' by expecting less public spending as a result. |
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Sept 11, 2023 16:34:48 GMT
I think looking at the overall public spending figure doesn't tell the whole story. Looking at it by sector: | Sector | 09/10 spend (billions) | 22/23 (billions) | Change | | Health | 156 | 222 | 42% increase | | Social protection | 298 | 319 | 7% increase | | Defense | 50 | 56 | 12% increase | | Public order and safety | 46 | 44 | 4% decrease | | Education | 118 | 107 | 9% decrease | | Economic affairs | 65 | 125 | 92% increase | | Housing and community | 22 | 18 | 18% decrease | | Environment | 14 | 14 | Even | | Recreation, culture and religion | 18 | 14 | 22% decrease |
Source: www.statista.com/topics/3842/uk-government-spending/#statisticChapter So, economic affairs has by far the biggest % increase in public spending - something which doesn't particularly focus on the poor. It along with Health saw a massive increase in spending due to Covid which hasn't quite come back down yet. Meanwhile three sectors that are of particular benefit to poor people - Education, Housing and Community Amenities and Recreation, Culture and Religion - all had significant spending decreases. And even that doesn't tell the full story - during the height of the austerity years (ie the second Cameron term), there were massive drops on spending on public order and safety, and housing and community - which of course has a knock on effect that later increases to spending struggle to remedy. So, yes I would say austerity is a thing and it has had a detrimental effect on the poorest.
I've looked at this chart with the sector breakdowns (inflation-adjusted, I see) several times but am still struggling to see your point.
Are you trying to argue that a spending decrease in *any* sector means austerity de facto? So, (if I did the Maths right) going by this argument, if the government had spent, say, 25Bn less on health to limit the spending increase from 2010 to a mere inflation-adjusted 20% and distributed this among Education, Housing and Community Amenities and Recreation, Culture and Religion to turn all those red figures green, then austerity wouldn't be a 'thing' any more?
Or is your point that austerity was caused by all the spending on Economic affairs, and if the government hadn't spent all that money on furlough payments and keeping businesses afloat, it wouldn't have happened?
Do you even understand what austerity means? Let me give an example: Greece slashing pensions by 15% after the 2011 eurozone crisis and then freezing them for the next ten years. The UK in the meantime sustaining the triple-lock on UK pensions over the same period guaranteeing a minimum increase of 2.5% a year? Not so much.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2023 18:37:55 GMT
Are you trying to argue that a spending decrease in *any* sector means austerity de facto? So, (if I did the Maths right) going by this argument, if the government had spent, say, 25Bn less on health to limit the spending increase from 2010 to a mere inflation-adjusted 20% and distributed this among Education, Housing and Community Amenities and Recreation, Culture and Religion to turn all those red figures green, then austerity wouldn't be a 'thing' any more? No, I'm saying that the government has significantly cut spending on the sectors of particular importance to those least well off and most vulnerable which is what people are complaining about when they complain about government austerity. And I don't think anyone is trying to argue UK austerity has been anything like as bad as Greek austerity. EDIT: Credit where credit is due however: May, Johnson and Truss all publicly rejected the need for severe austerity and I think they did uphold that to some degree. If you look at the sector analysis comparing Cameron's last full year as PM to 09/10, it's a much more bleak picture: Health - 8% increase Social protection - 8% increase Defense - 10% decrease Public order and safety - 10% decrease Education - 14% decrease Economic affairs - 12% decrease Housing and Community- 45% decrease Environment- 1% increase Recreation etc - 22% decrease Another factor hidden in stats is how much of public spending actually helps the public. The Universal Credit scheme for instance has had a very high bureaucratic cost, but that hasn't meant more money for recipients. |
|
|
|
Post by notoriousnobbi on Sept 19, 2023 5:50:32 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by mowlick on Sept 19, 2023 9:10:38 GMT
I thought that it was Labour councils such as Birmingham and Croydon that had gone bankrupt, not Tory ones. And the problem was not austerity but pissing away money the local authorities did not have.
Still, if the Guardian and Observer say so, it must be so
|
|
|
|
Post by yggdrasil on Sept 19, 2023 10:25:21 GMT
I thought that it was Labour councils such as Birmingham and Croydon that had gone bankrupt, not Tory ones. And the problem was not austerity but pissing away money the local authorities did not have.
Still, if the Guardian and Observer say so, it must be so
Northamptonshire is Tory and went bankrupt with debts of nearly 1 billion pounds. Thurrock is Tory and had a 500 million debt from dodgy investments. Woking too (although lost now to the lib dems because of it) had a 1.2 billion deficit ...But then you ignored that last time too when it was pointed out to you. Seems it's just Labour ones you choose to count. ![[grin]](http://storage.proboards.com/6870873/images/CBubFSUbXfyoLMZUjeBb.gif) |
|
