Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

What's wrong with sensible austerity policies? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm confused as to why so many people are anti-austerity.

    There's a saying my Mum used to say to me as a child; "sometimes you've got to be mean to be nice." And I think that saying applies to sensible austerity policies. Short term it may not be great, and perhaps we will have to pay a little more in taxes and suffer a little bit due to cuts in public sectors. But in the long run, surely we will be thankful for it?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Nothing is wrong with them, they are much needed alongside a cut back in public services and bring them more in line with the private sector.

    The public has spoken now its up to Dave to put it into action, fast!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Nothing. It's just a case of the left disagreeing with a Tory policy because it is a Tory policy. Labour planned some form of austerity, but it didn't get the same vitriol levelled against it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I think you're a bit confused op, the problem most people have with austerity is that it is going on alonj ta cuts not tax rises. People would probably be a lot less pissy about it if taxes were raised at the same time. As it is people are being made redunt and servicss cut in order for the rich to pay less taxes.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Because the cuts don't just exist on paper.

    Take one example: NHS mental health funding was cut by 8% in real terms throughout the parliament. That's real people suffering because they can't access suitable treatment they need.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    "The problem with ideological austerity is that it is so arbitrary, relying on the naive assumption that all forms of government spending create a uniform return on investment of 50p in the pound. It should be obvious that some forms of government spending create better returns on investment than others, but the Tories failed to factor this into their equations, preferring instead to simply assume that all spending is wasteful.

    If you make a simplistic assumption that all forms of government spending are 50% waste then of course it makes sense to bring in across the board cuts. The problem is that reality obviously isn't that simple, and as in everyday life, some forms of spending are far better at producing good returns on investment than others. In fact the IMF (hardly a left-wing organisation by any stretch of the imagination) estimate that in the current economic climate the majority of government spending returns between 90p and £1.70 for every pound spen.

    Once we understand that returns on investment are almost always a lot higher than the Tories lazily assumed they would be, it becomes completely obvious that the best way to improve the economy is to carry out a strategic spending review, then cut spending in areas with poor returns on investment, but actually increase spending in areas that produce strong returns on investment."

    There is nothing wrong with sensible austerity. They just wont do it. They will cut everything they don't like for ideological reasons.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    So if I go to my GP tomorrow with mental health complaints, I will be thrown out onto the street?
    No, but you may struggle to access suitable treatment or find yourself on a very long waiting list (in excess of a year).

    Or, if you are really ill, you may find yourself in a police cell because of bed shortages.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31149226

    As I said, real people suffer.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quantex)
    Because the cuts don't just exist on paper.

    Take one example: NHS mental health funding was cut by 8% in real terms throughout the parliament. That's real people suffering because they can't access suitable treatment they need.
    Or put another way:

    How much would they be suffering if he we did not have austerity policies? They would be far worse.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    During the world recession the top 10% of the rich actually got richer. Austerity would only be sensible if it was applied equally to everyone in society. Do you think the Queen is hit by austerity? Is her £35m per year benefits package cut? No way. Only the poorest and most vulnerable of society are targeted - mostly because they can't afford lawyers.

    If you ask these questions, then you have to be willing to find the answers. That takes research and talking to experts who know the subject. Simply asking the question isn't good enough.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Why are we cutting services that the British public need, but continue to give billions away in foreign aid?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Feels)
    Why are we cutting services that the British public need, but continue to give billions away in foreign aid?
    Not sure about UK but I know the US gives more foreign aid to Israel than all other countries put together to fund the Western invasion of the Middle East.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aaronlowe)
    Not sure about UK but I know the US gives more foreign aid to Israel than all other countries put together to fund the Western invasion of the Middle East.
    gee, I wonder why
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Feels)
    gee, I wonder why
    Charades: One word, one syllable, begins with O and ends in L.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aaronlowe)
    During the world recession the top 10% of the rich actually got richer. Austerity would only be sensible if it was applied equally to everyone in society. Do you think the Queen is hit by austerity? Is her £35m per year benefits package cut? No way. Only the poorest and most vulnerable of society are targeted - mostly because they can't afford lawyers.
    You're saying the Tories protected the Queen's spending? Not at all. The Queen's personal lifestyle is not paid for by taxpayers, and while the rest of government has risen in cost over the past 25 years, the cost of the monarchy fell in real terms 1991-2011.

    Royal finance is kept on a different field from all other spending precisely to prevent it becoming a political football.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    This is not 'sensible austerity', this is ideological cutting of public services in 'deficit reduction' gift wrap.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Incognito)
    Short term it may not be great, and perhaps we will have to pay a little more in taxes and suffer a little bit due to cuts in public sectors. But in the long run, surely we will be thankful for it?
    It's actually the opposite, it seems great on paper in reducing the deficit, but will have far reaching long-term effects. Reducing the deficit is nothing but a short-term populist appeal to go in their line with their "Labour caused the global recession" nonsense.

    Similar to how the change with tuition fees reduced the deficit but drastically increased the debt.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    If anyone thinks that current levels of government spending are sustainable then they are just deluded.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    In a time when a nation is recovering from one of the worst recessions in decades, and when the government is loaded with debt and an immense budget deficit, more borrowing and spending is going to be quite counterproductive. Nobody likes cuts, but it's something you're going to have to deal with if you want a stable economic environment in the future. And it's not like they're going to be permanent.

    Be thankful they're not going to raise taxes and take money out of your pocket.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    This is not 'sensible austerity', this is ideological cutting of public services in 'deficit reduction' gift wrap.
    So the Tories are cutting public services out of sadism? The Tories want to see less policemen on the streets for a laugh?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    You're saying the Tories protected the Queen's spending? Not at all. The Queen's personal lifestyle is not paid for by taxpayers, and while the rest of government has risen in cost over the past 25 years, the cost of the monarchy fell in real terms 1991-2011.

    Royal finance is kept on a different field from all other spending precisely to prevent it becoming a political football.
    No, I was just using the Queen as an example of that top 10% I was referring to and at the same time mentioning that her wages are actually benefits like people on JSA and ESA. Whether the cost of the monarchy has fallen is irrelevant.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE Results Day?

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.