…more money.

Must be taking inspiration from elsewhere 😀

They did that ages ago

[just people preferred to ignore the fact and rabbit on about austerity]

Well, that’ll work.

It did already. You can see how the economy reacted to a loosening of policy by Austerity George quite clearly.

Hammond is just re-packaging the idea and removing the rope that Osbourne raised to hang himself with

Old news

Can someone explain the whole “Austerity” thing? I’ve worked in Local Govt and seen an awful lot of cuts to all services – social, transport, health across the board really. Funding to Local Authorities has been slashed and council tax rises threatened with further slashes from central Govt. So from my perspective “Austerity” is still here, has been for years and is predicted to be for years again (post Brexit).

So where’s the money going? Is it big infrastructure like Crossrail and HS2? Rich folks pockets? Paying off the banks post crisis? Tax cuts? Why are they continuing to borrow too?

Sorry for the questions, just missing some big gaps in my knowledge.

Where does the money go – the largest block is pensions then health

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_central_pie_chart

buying the grey vote?

@tgm…so what’s the difference in strategy to Labour? Seem very similar to me, which is contradictory to the rhetoric at election time…

Austerity means different things to different people

To economists and THM it means the govt not borrowing so much

To the majority of the country, it means the biggest cuts ever seen to council funding, hundreds of libraries, youth clubs, sure start centres closed, less police on our roads and street’s, privatisation of education, hammering the poorest, unemployed and disabled docs striking over contacts and huge chunks of the civil service closed down with the resultant loss in services to the taxpayer.
It’s basically a cover to roll back the welfare state and the post war society.

I don’t see Theresa Mays government changing any of this

Thanks Kimbers and THM. Thought it’d be something simple (?) like that.

Difference? There has’t been a tangible difference for decades.

Avoid headlines and lazy rhetoric and stick to the data instead.

TBF to the Tories they (deliberately or by chance, you decide) played the post crisis game of pretending to be tough on the deficit well (sensible at the time*) but on the quiet did nothing of the sort (ditto). Hammond is just pretending that he is doing something different – he isn’t.

* in actual fact, what they were saying was total nonsense (You cant solve a debt crisis with more debt etc) but the markets wanted to hear it. In a balance sheet recession when households and corporates are deleveraging/running surpluses, the LAST thing governments should be doing is to do the same. Luckily, ours didnt, despite the noise…

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_central_pie_chart

More is spent on Defence than Education. Jeez. That’s depressing.

@peyote…I agree with @Kimbers…whilst Tory and Labour appear similar now (accept the deficit for what it is – which is pretty shitty since Tories convinced the voter it was an issue and they should be voted for so they could reduce it) – Tories have an ideology of shrinking the Welfare State. So money saved on that goes elsewhere and they ignore defcit total…

Peyote – what you are describing reflects local authority spending see

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/local_chart_gallery

where the trends are different to the overall. It comes down to priorities in the end or the central question of economics – how do you allocate scarce resources

More is spent on Defence than Education. Jeez. That’s depressing.

And wrong.

Defence 6%

Education 11%

@thm…madness. You state there hasn’t been a tangible economic difference for ages yet constantly the definition of political difference (in discussions on STW) re the two big parties is their economic policies.

Tories have an ideology of shrinking the Welfare State.

Well they are not very good on execution in that case are they?

@thm…madness. You state there hasn’t been a tangible economic difference for ages yet constantly the definition of political difference (in discussions on STW) re the two big parties is their economic policies.

EVB – yes rhetoric versus reality. Opinions are driven more by tribal allegiances than facts here and in the wider world. Check out any Scottish threads they are hilarious. The SNP get described a left of centre and anti-austerity when in practice they are patently neither.

Go and check the spending plans in the last few manifestos and them remember governments REACT they dont lead.

We’ve borrowed much more (relative to GDP)…

Still very affordable by historic standards….

longer time scale

ideology

I love the way this word gets banded about like it’s an insult

*They* have an ideology, *we* have a commitment

And we defaulted, stole, repressed our way out of those past peaks too – somethings in life don’t chance. We are currently taxing savers and distorting markets to do the very same thing. Free markets eh???

Did you notice the big events (clue: require lots of money) that correspond with the charts!?!

And wrong.

Defence 6%

Education 11%

are we looking at different pie charts?

@nifan…do you know the definition of ideology? I never associated it negatively..you did, which must mean you feel uncomfortable with shrinking the Welfare State. It’s their policy and you’d be an egit to try to hide that fact..
they never do.

are you including health in welfare here EVB?

As with most of these things you need to read the small print, the whole “reduce the deficit” line is vaguer than you think.

It’s not reducing the national debt.
Or even reducing the amount more me borrow every year.
It’s reducing the rate of increase in amount we borrow every year.

It was also offical dropped as a result of Brexit.

In the financial year 2014/15, the UK government spent £258 billion on welfare, which made up 35% of all government spending. In the financial year 2010/11 the government spent £230 billion on welfare, around 33% of government spending.

Source: ONS

So is it just a case of bad execution of an ideology? Ditto Health

Health spending has experienced significant growth since 1949–50, at an average annual real rate of 3.7% up to 2014–15. After uneven growth between the 1970s and the late 1990s, the last Labour government oversaw an acceleration of the increases in spending on the National Health Service, pushing up health spending to around 7% of national income prior to the recession. While other departments have experienced budget cuts as part of the coalition government’s programme of austerity (sic), spending on health has been increased in real terms. This ‘protection’ nonetheless represents a tight funding environment for the NHS, not least as demographic pressure pushes up demand.

Source: IFS

are we looking at different pie charts?

Nope, but you are perhaps only looking at the central government spending on Education, not the total.

Austerity was never an attempt to do anything about the deficit. It was purely an ideological attack on state provision of services and of the terms and conditions of those who work for the state.

which is contradictory to the rhetoric at election time…

I’m no economist, but I seem to recall something happening between then and now which might make people rethink plans? Pushing on in spite of a changing situation would seem to me to be a bigger issue that actually responding to the changes.

Ah yes, thanks for the clarification cranberry.

privatisation of education

😀

hammering the poorest

ONS: Since 2006/07, the Gini coefficients for gross, disposable and post-tax income have all decreased, reflecting a fall in income inequality on these measures and resulting in some of the lowest levels of income inequality observed since the late 1980s. (ONS 2015)

These bloody Tories cant deliver on any of their ideology can they?

THM
Cuts to the DLA have a much greater impact on those that rely on them than capping child benefit for 60k+ households
No matter who saves the government the most

Changing short term policy in the light of a new environment is sensible Government. Had Labour levels of borrowing and spending growth continued we wouldn’t have the option to borrow more as the markets / private sector wouldn’t lend us the money

Austerity was never an attempt to do anything about the deficit. It was purely an ideological attack on state provision of services and of the terms and conditions of those who work for the state.

Rubbish, its simple Economic prudence and is being followed throightout Europe. France tried to buck that trend and it was a disaster, Hollande reversed direction and is now following the same policy.

I think it’s fairly clear that politicians haven’t a **** clue.

Lord Porter, the Conservative chair of the Local Government Association, said last night that the government should consider relaxing the rules that stop councils borrowing to invest in housing. This is the policy that Jeremy Corbyn was proposing at the Labour conference last week

Jambas – we (the austerity gang) have a more expansionary fiscal policy than France (your free spending socialists) – economic prudence, seems to be for governments to offset the deleveraging of the private sector. Our nasty, ideologically-driven, enemy of the poor, privatisers of the state are doing that in contrast to nos amis en France

In the paper today it said that they’d given up on the deficit target, but were sticking with austerity, so this:

Austerity was never an attempt to do anything about the deficit. It was purely an ideological attack on state provision of services and of the terms and conditions of those who work for the state.

.. would appear to be bang on.

Rubbish, its simple Economic prudence

Except it isn’t because it’s not saving anything or reducing anything is it?

Actually the deficit (not the debt) has reduced by two thirds, so the deficit is reducing due to austerity.

Oh, so it has worked?

I knew there was a reason I never opted for economics, I’m rubbish at statistics too so got no hope for understanding this stuff.

Except it isn’t because it’s not saving anything or reducing anything is it?

Jam you have to appreciate that austerity might not always be prudent.

If you as a household stop non-essential spending, then your finances will improve. If everyone did it, the economy would plunge into recession.

You MUST understand economics better than this, surely?

Still not spending enough on healthcare, don’t get ill this winter folks