In the light of [s]new circumstances[/s] the ludicrous act of financial self harm this [s]makes perfect sense[/s] means a complete about face for Tory policy .
So is it just a case of bad execution of an ideology? Ditto HealthHealth 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
Whilst funding has gone up the government also changed the National Insurance rules on the NHS so the treasury gets £5bn of the extra funding back.
Indeed, but how do you match up austerity and increasing NHS spending?
You cant - hence you are asking the wring question
According to newsnight they are going full Keynesian
It's like Cameron & Osborne never existed
Heathrow expansion is a cert (soooo glad I'm no longer under the flight path, feel very sorry for those still there- apart from Zac the racist obvs)
It seems like they are aware austerity has divided the nation, but they won't actually admit it, the question is will there be an investment in local services and education that are so desperately needed after years of cuts.
Will catch Newsnight later. Hammond was pretty clear in his speech, new circumstances and therefore a policy adjustment in the timing of budget surplus target. Without having made progress in geting the finances in order we would not have the flexibility to adjust policy now. If you saw the Andrew Neill show you'd see the majority of party members asked where still in favour of pressing ahead with balancing the budget - crack on vs ease off.
We know fiscal prudence is unpopular, of course it is people want to just keep on spendng. Paying back debt/reducing spending is painful whether this is personal or national. When Labour last made such a catastrophe of the public finances the IMF insisted on spending cuts as a condition for their loan. We can do this ourselves or we can spend, blow up and then have the IMF or others impose financial prodence on us.
Can any of the clever economists explain what this (Keynesian) means. I watched newsnight but could not understand what they were saying. What will be different now?
According to newsnight they are going full Keynesian
Only if you misunderstand what Keynesian is.
It's like Cameron & Osborne never existed
Why? They did the same - just that the rhetoric did not match the reality of what they were doing
It seems like they are aware austerity has divided the nation, but they won't actually admit it, the question is will there be an investment in local services and education that are so desperately needed after years of cuts.
Odd that something that doesn't exist has divided the nation especially at a time of lower income inequality, rising employment and economic recovery? The government has continued to spend more than it earns - which is the appropriate thing to do at the moment - and has been more aggressive in this that most developed nations.
jambalaya - Member
Will catch Newsnight later. Hammond was pretty clear in his speech, new circumstances and therefore a policy adjustment in the timing of budget surplus target.
In reali there is no policy adjustment. It's a mirage and Hammind pretending to be different.
Without having made progress in geting the finances in order we would not have the flexibility to adjust policy now.
😯
If you saw the Andrew Neill show you'd see the majority of party members asked where still in favour of pressing ahead with balancing the budget - crack on vs ease off.
They are ignorant. If the household and corporate sector are running surpluses, the last thing that governments should do is to do the same. Surpluses and deficits have to match each other. The whole fiscal debate has been shaped by people who don't understand how the economy works.
Paying back debt/reducing spending is painful whether this is personal or national.
We have done neither at the national level
Doc - there is a tendency to equate Keynesian with higher levels of government spending. This is lazy, ignorant or both. Quite simply it is wrong.
So what is it then, thm?
well im certainly economically lazy /ignorant
but as i understand it keynsian ,means spending to invest and grow the economy
THM, our definitions of austerity differ the label 'austerity' has been used as a pretext by the last 2 governments to ...
close 100s of libraries
close 100s of sure start cnetres
biggest ever cuts to police numbers and funding
biggest ever cuts to council spending (and all the infrastructure they support)
huge programme to move schools out of LA control
top down reorganisation of the NHS
benefits and DLAs severley restricted
house prices and rents still soaring waaaay above salaries
created thousands of non-jobs, that means work doesnt pay and the productivity gap is soaring
etc etc
all of these cuts have damaged our society and the legacy will be a poorer educated less cohesive and even less productive population
leaving those with the least in a far crapper place than they were pre 2008, hence the easy 'blame immigrants EU ref result'
while child benefit cap was a good thing a statistical reduction in the gini coefficient means fk all to the 1/2 million people who've used food banks to eat this year.
To oversimplify, JMK believed that the state could play a role iin managing aggregate demand and in smoothing the natural economic cycle. To do this he advocated that governments should build up surpluses (spend < earn) in good times (and therefore depress the upside) in order to allow them to run deficits (spend > earn) during bad times (and therefore limit the downside). In essence he believed in counter-cyclical government policy
He was responding to persistent high unemployment at the time.
His basic argument was sound except for the fact that governments are very bad at doing this - hence the UK had a period of what became known as the "stop-go" cycle as governments mismanaged/misjudged the economic cycle. The unfortunate result was that Keynesian economics got an undeserved bad name and went out of favour. It was replaced by a different school that was also misapplied and misunderstood - there is a trend here, which makes Auntie Theresa's comments about the role of government yesterday all the more perplexing
the least in a far crapper place than they were pre 2008, hence the easy 'blame immigrants EU ref result'
The first half is patently false. The second isn't. Hence the grotesque positions that politicians are now adopting. Sickening.
The first half is patently false.
really?
because people living in deprived areas were more likely to use libraries- especially unemployed, obviously needed sure start centres, more likely to use the NHS and now much more likely to use food banks etc
Yes really
Go check which is the only segment of the population that was better off at the end of last year than at the time of the crisis.
Sorry that facts dont match the narrative - in more ways that one
Ok thanks for the explanations kimbers and thm.
I think I get it now.
It's a weird feeling be for someone such as me working in the NHS to be thinking about investing to grow, as in the NHS the only investment that is happening is to try to save money.
The rhetoric about increasing spending in healthcare etc is all a smokescreen to hide the continuous drive to reduce spending.
Sorry that [s]facts[/s] stats dont [s]match the narrative[/s] equate to personal happines - in more ways that one
Obvs I have no measure for peoples contentment, and tbh ive just moved from a not so nice part of London to a much nicer part of bucks, so my experience of life at the crap end is based only on going back to my home town, so Im taking ref result (and those I know voted out and their reasoning) as a national poll 😉
Go check which is the only segment of the population that was better off
Some segment had more libraries?
Contentment does not equate to economic well being does it? I always believe that true wealth is having/enjoying the things that money cannot buy
Contentment does not equate to economic well being does it?
I think they are strongly correlated at the lower end of things, aren't they?
