4 ms·

Austerity was an absolute disaster for the UK. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_austerity_programme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United

Austerity was an absolute disaster for the UK. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_austerity_programme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_aust... > Most macroeconomists now agree that the austerity programme pursued by the Coalition Government in its first two years was both too severe and unnecessary and set back the economic recovery which was underway in the first half of 2010. The Office of Budget Responsibility confirmed that the austerity programme reduced GDP, while the Oxford economist Simon Wren-Lewis has calculated that the Coalition Government's austerity programme cost the average household £4000 over the lifetime of the Parliament and severely damaged those public services which were not ring-fenced.

disgruntledphd2 3y ago
> set back the economic recovery which was underway in the first half of 2010 This was really obvious at the time. The economy was recovering slowly, and then the Tories got elected and induced a recession. It kinda amazes me that this wasn't obvious in advance of their actions, but whatevs.
- iamflimflam1 3y ago
  It was very much an ideological driven cost cutting exercise.
  - midasuni 3y ago
    It was also what all three parties proposed. I remember an IFS report showing actual cuts were less than both Tory and labour plans and slightly more than Lib Dem plans, but if you go back to 2010 you had a labour chancellor promising to cut more than thatcher. It’s common in hindsight to say “if only labour were elected” Also worth remembering that in 2015 the country said “we want more Tory”. The coalition wasn’t Tory enough. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/mar/25/alistair-darling-cut-deeper-margaret-thatcher https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/mar/25/alistair-da...
- zozbot234 3y ago
  There was also that whole Brexit and "let's give those billions to the NHS" kerfuffle. Maybe that had something more to do with the recession.
  - disgruntledphd2 3y ago
    That was six years later, so seems unlikely.
mjburgess 3y ago
That wikipedia article is outrageous, just look at its sources list -- it's almost entirely a rewriting of guardian articles. I have never seen something so revisionary on wikipedia. This is just left-wing propaganda. There is zero analysis of the macroeconomic context, zero analysis of austery as an economic policy. Just an endless series of newspapers attacking the government in power for the economic consequences of a economic crisis. One of the most egregious misrepresentations of an issue i've ever seen. Its just writing up what newspapers said; i can't believe it. Reading that article can you answer: (1) what the economic policies called 'austerity' were? (2) what the economic aims of these polices were? (3) whether these aims were successful? (4) why were these the aims? (5) what were alternative policies?
- gadders 3y ago
  I think the time has long past when you could rely on wikipedia for a disinterested viewpoint on anything political or subjects that are part of the "culture wars".
- iamflimflam1 3y ago
  There are 184 references.
  - mjburgess 3y ago
    An encyclopedia is a place where secondary research on a topic by disinterested professionals is summarised. You could not submit to an academic journal with most of your controversial claims referenced to newspapers. An enclopedia operates at a higher standard of research than academic journal articles -- it should summarise books/etc. about those articles. This article is essentially poor-quality primary research which quotes MPs and newspapers to argue a case about austerity. That's fine for a BA sociology degree -- it's bad for a MSc, it's disqualifying at PhD level, and has zero plac e in an encylcopedia
- midasuni 3y ago
  FT is hardly a left wing rag https://www.ft.com/content/1670a3d2-880f-11e2-8e3c-00144feabdc0 https://www.ft.com/content/1670a3d2-880f-11e2-8e3c-00144feab... https://archive.is/t1wU0 https://archive.is/t1wU0 Hindsight is wonderful, in 2010 the choice was austerity, austerity or austerity, there was no alternate voice, but that doesn’t mean it was the right move

disgruntledphd2 3y ago

> set back the economic recovery which was underway in the first half of 2010 This was really obvious at the time. The economy was recovering slowly, and then the Tories got elected and induced a recession. It kinda amazes me that this wasn't obvious in advance of their actions, but whatevs.

iamflimflam1 3y ago
It was very much an ideological driven cost cutting exercise.
- midasuni 3y ago
  It was also what all three parties proposed. I remember an IFS report showing actual cuts were less than both Tory and labour plans and slightly more than Lib Dem plans, but if you go back to 2010 you had a labour chancellor promising to cut more than thatcher. It’s common in hindsight to say “if only labour were elected” Also worth remembering that in 2015 the country said “we want more Tory”. The coalition wasn’t Tory enough. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/mar/25/alistair-darling-cut-deeper-margaret-thatcher https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/mar/25/alistair-da...
zozbot234 3y ago
There was also that whole Brexit and "let's give those billions to the NHS" kerfuffle. Maybe that had something more to do with the recession.
- disgruntledphd2 3y ago
  That was six years later, so seems unlikely.

mjburgess 3y ago

That wikipedia article is outrageous, just look at its sources list -- it's almost entirely a rewriting of guardian articles. I have never seen something so revisionary on wikipedia. This is just left-wing propaganda. There is zero analysis of the macroeconomic context, zero analysis of austery as an economic policy. Just an endless series of newspapers attacking the government in power for the economic consequences of a economic crisis. One of the most egregious misrepresentations of an issue i've ever seen. Its just writing up what newspapers said; i can't believe it. Reading that article can you answer: (1) what the economic policies called 'austerity' were? (2) what the economic aims of these polices were? (3) whether these aims were successful? (4) why were these the aims? (5) what were alternative policies?

gadders 3y ago
I think the time has long past when you could rely on wikipedia for a disinterested viewpoint on anything political or subjects that are part of the "culture wars".
iamflimflam1 3y ago
There are 184 references.
- mjburgess 3y ago
  An encyclopedia is a place where secondary research on a topic by disinterested professionals is summarised. You could not submit to an academic journal with most of your controversial claims referenced to newspapers. An enclopedia operates at a higher standard of research than academic journal articles -- it should summarise books/etc. about those articles. This article is essentially poor-quality primary research which quotes MPs and newspapers to argue a case about austerity. That's fine for a BA sociology degree -- it's bad for a MSc, it's disqualifying at PhD level, and has zero plac e in an encylcopedia
midasuni 3y ago
FT is hardly a left wing rag https://www.ft.com/content/1670a3d2-880f-11e2-8e3c-00144feabdc0 https://www.ft.com/content/1670a3d2-880f-11e2-8e3c-00144feab... https://archive.is/t1wU0 https://archive.is/t1wU0 Hindsight is wonderful, in 2010 the choice was austerity, austerity or austerity, there was no alternate voice, but that doesn’t mean it was the right move