Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Remember Austerity? Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Seems like May is intent on taking the tories back to the 1960s. She's gone more authoritarian socially and seemingly now more interventionist and protectionist economically.
    Seems a bit early to judge, but she's certainly not an instinctive liberal conservative in same vein as I am. Outcomes are one thing, but I'm pretty sure Theresa May has a very different world-view to the one I have. Sure, there's some space for paternalistic conservatism and all that - but it's not really my scene.

    There's been a pretty big change in government since Cameron left. At my lowest points, I worry that we now have a nationalist, interventionist and populist government in power. What really worries me is that these views might actually find a great deal of favour among the general public and that she'll end up polling around 50% at some point, and I'll be exposed as one of those out-of-touch metropolitan elitists.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Seems a bit early to judge, but she's certainly not an instinctive liberal conservative in same vein as I am. Outcomes are one thing, but I'm pretty sure Theresa May has a very different world-view to the one I have. Sure, there's some space for paternalistic conservatism and all that - but it's not really my scene.

    There's been a pretty big change in government since Cameron left. At my lowest points, I worry that we now have a nationalist, interventionist and populist government in power. What really worries me is that these views might actually find a great deal of favour among the general public and that she'll end up polling around 50% at some point, and I'll be exposed as one of those out-of-touch metropolitan elitists.
    If the orange bookers rose from the ashes, could you see yourself being tempted by them?
    You seem to have more in common with Clegg than you do May.

    I think May is playing a very strategic game at the moment. She is parking her tanks firmly on UKIP/ working class territory. There's been quite a bit of grumbling on the tory backbenches from the likes of Osborne, Morgan and Soubry already.

    Perhaps at one point in the future, the modernisers in both labour and tory as well as the Lib Dems could realign into one party.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    If the orange bookers rose from the ashes, could you see yourself being tempted by them?
    You seem to have more in common with Clegg than you do May.
    I've always had more in common with the centrists of the Labour Party and the Lib Dems than I've ever had with fairly big chunks of my own party.

    I think May is playing a very strategic game at the moment. She is parking her tanks firmly on UKIP/ working class territory. There's been quite a bit of grumbling on the tory backbenches from the likes of Osborne, Morgan and Soubry already.
    Strategically, it's not a bad idea. There was a real danger of a betrayal narrative forming after Brexit with UKIP picking up from masses of people persuaded that they weren't getting what they voted for. So far, she's managed to avoid that particular iceberg successfully - and is getting away with quite a lot, riding high in the opinion polls.

    The problem is that I do worry sometimes that she actually believes it all. Plenty of her cabinet certainly do. I mean, we've got Liam Fox as our International Trade Secretary, for heaven's sake. I wouldn't let that man run a sweetshop.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    I'm sorry, but this is the height of ignorance. Not only are you peddling absolutely disgusting nonsense about the welfare system that protects the vulnerable - and people like you should be called out on that more often - you've completely misunderstood even the most basic economic principle at stake here.

    Investing for growth, essentially the Keynesian approach of addressing a downturn, is not about pouring money into welfare. Indeed, if anything welfare spending depresses economic activity. It is about spending in ways that promote such activity: infrastructure, building - in the longer term, things like education and innovation.

    Not to mention, of course, that "austerity" was always over-stated by both the Government and the opposition.
    In the OP I'm talking about propaganda lol. How naive must you be :lolwut:

    Also again with the nasty Tories. "Indeed, if anything welfare spending depresses economic activity" . Therefore being inhuman towards disabled who rely on welfare is justified. How do people like you sleep at night? Not only that and you have the nerve to call me the disgusting one :lolwut:

    At least I'm using my propaganda to maybe help err... not kill disabled people.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    "Indeed, if anything welfare spending depresses economic activity" . Therefore being inhuman towards disabled who rely on welfare is justified. How do people like you sleep at night?
    By basing my views on facts. Whether or not social security spending (and more specifically, in what areas) depresses economic activity is a matter of objective fact. We may have some shortcomings in how we measure effects, but the actual effects themselves are rational.

    Denying that rationality with stupid appeals to emotion doesn't help anybody. It certainly doesn't help in a discussion about economics. Nor does it overcome your original ignorance that seems to assert that because there is evidence some public spending may have a positive effect on economic growth that all public spending must therefore do so.

    At least I'm using my propaganda to maybe help err... not kill disabled people.
    No, you're using it to crowd out legitimate criticism and discussion over the shape of the British welfare state. There are problems with how our welfare system responds, particularly in unusual cases - and there is space for an overall debate about how welfare functions.

    Running about talking nonsense about the former Chancellor killing disabled people isn't just common-or-garden internet lunacy, it's also massively counterproductive to anyone who actually cares about our welfare system, who bothers to actually take a bit of time to understand it, and who seeks to have a sensible discussion about it.

    You've essentially taken an important issue, vomited all over it, and now you're strutting around like you've some sort of moral high ground.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Japan and Italy have not collapsed so it's hard to see how its the most important metric (.
    Though I agree with much of what you say, I don't think citing Italy's economy is adding anything to your argument.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    By basing my views on facts. Whether or not social security spending (and more specifically, in what areas) depresses economic activity is a matter of objective fact. We may have some shortcomings in how we measure effects, but the actual effects themselves are rational.

    Denying that rationality with stupid appeals to emotion doesn't help anybody. It certainly doesn't help in a discussion about economics. Nor does it overcome your original ignorance that seems to assert that because there is evidence some public spending may have a positive effect on economic growth that all public spending must therefore do so.



    No, you're using it to crowd out legitimate criticism and discussion over the shape of the British welfare state. There are problems with how our welfare system responds, particularly in unusual cases - and there is space for an overall debate about how welfare functions.

    Running about talking nonsense about the former Chancellor killing disabled people isn't just common-or-garden internet lunacy, it's also massively counterproductive to anyone who actually cares about our welfare system, who bothers to actually take a bit of time to understand it, and who seeks to have a sensible discussion about it.

    You've essentially taken an important issue, vomited all over it, and now you're strutting around like you've some sort of moral high ground.
    Get 'em. Put it better than I could have*
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    By basing my views on facts. Whether or not social security spending (and more specifically, in what areas) depresses economic activity is a matter of objective fact. We may have some shortcomings in how we measure effects, but the actual effects themselves are rational.

    Denying that rationality with stupid appeals to emotion doesn't help anybody. It certainly doesn't help in a discussion about economics. Nor does it overcome your original ignorance that seems to assert that because there is evidence some public spending may have a positive effect on economic growth that all public spending must therefore do so.



    No, you're using it to crowd out legitimate criticism and discussion over the shape of the British welfare state. There are problems with how our welfare system responds, particularly in unusual cases - and there is space for an overall debate about how welfare functions.

    Running about talking nonsense about the former Chancellor killing disabled people isn't just common-or-garden internet lunacy, it's also massively counterproductive to anyone who actually cares about our welfare system, who bothers to actually take a bit of time to understand it, and who seeks to have a sensible discussion about it.

    You've essentially taken an important issue, vomited all over it, and now you're strutting around like you've some sort of moral high ground.
    Pretty much spot on. The same tactic as that used to stifle any debate on immigration, by playing the Racist card.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    Austerity and the surplus target was just a political thing to use against Labour.

    However it had run its course in terms of political usefulness, Labour don't look like challenging now anyway, so Osborne's constant mantra about cuts and austerity were starting to become a millstone around the government's neck. Also there was always the risk that recession (which always pushes up a deficit) could have left the Conservatives open to ridicule if they had banged on about deficit reduction for 10 years and then were unlucky enough to go in to a recession a year or two out from an election, that could have pushed the deficit right back up in one year. With Osborne having gone it gives an ideal opportunity to ditch the policy.

    I don't expect Hammond will suddenly go on a spending spree. I expect he will be a fairly managerial Chancellor. I don't see him as personally ambitious as Osborne and is unlikely to be May's successor so unlike Osborne's Budgets he's not trying to position himself for the leadership. He will probably tinker a bit here and there, try to keep the ship steady during Brexit and find a bit of money from somewhere to address some of the bigger shortages of infrastructure, which would at least be welcome. The deficit will probably continue to fall but more slowly.

    Also I think the welfare cuts will stop now. Not saying they will restore things that have already gone, but I don't see Theresa May looking to make political capital out of cutting welfare in the way that Cameron and Osborne did, trying to paint Labour as "the party for scroungers".
    L i b


    This is what I am trying to say.

    It's all propaganda politics crap.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I'd love to know what kind of austerity the UK has gone through under Osbourne. Does anyone have any actual data? (not from the guardian btw)
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Break up or unrequited love?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.