Damn, the resentment to “austerity” programs in Europe is really spilling over to internet comments. I was just reading Rock Paper Shotgun, when...
British LWers, is it like what they say? Are the would-be dismantlers of the welfare state… (EDIT) bringing in really unpleasant consequences for innocent people?
I will try and address this comment as neutrally as I can, although it is difficult on such a politically charged issue. There are basically two issues. One is the spending cuts. The other is the macroeconomic performance. They are separate, but linked.
The spending cuts are not dismantling the welfare state. In fact, most of the spending cuts are not cuts, they are simply increases less than the rate of inflation. They are, however, causing unpleasant consequences, because people generally like their local library or their benefits etc. And of course everyone is innocent, no-one personally caused the financial crisis. On the other hand, many of the cuts are very justified; for example, people getting paid housing benefit of more than the average salary is utterly indefensible. Not all the cuts are like that, but no-one is getting “really” unpleasant consequences.
However, there are no two ways about it, the macroeconomic performance sucks. And this is causing really unpleasant consequences—long-term unemployment, stagnant wages, etc. And not just that, but as RichardKennaway says below, the bad economic performance means that despite the “austerity,” the budget deficit has not come down as much as the government had hoped. Some people say the bad economic performance is caused by the spending cuts, but it’s impossible to know—there are so many possible causes. For example, our largest trading partner is the Eurozone, which has had truly terrible economic performance. Alternatively, lots of people blame the Bank of England. This is the major issue. - most of the benefit cuts are very popular. To the extent that people don’t like the austerity programme, it is mostly because they think it is responsible for the bad economy.
In summary, I reject your framing—there are no would-be dismantlers of the welfare state. If the austerity measures are responsible for the bad economic performance, then they are (indirectly) bringing in really unpleasant consequences. Otherwise, not.
I can’t see anyone saying anything at that link, other than that the UK games industry got a tax concession from the UK government (which got around EU rules to do it). Context (absent from the linked blog post, including its comments) is that the UK government is also implementing a long-term austerity programme, and not doing very well at it, with a threat (I heard on the radio today) of losing its AAA credit rating.
What you are really asking is:
British LWers, is it like what I say, which to anyone who has the right political views, i.e. mine (which are of course not political, but true), will be obvious without my actually saying it?
Damn, the resentment to “austerity” programs in Europe is really spilling over to internet comments. I was just reading Rock Paper Shotgun, when...
British LWers, is it like what they say? Are the would-be dismantlers of the welfare state… (EDIT) bringing in really unpleasant consequences for innocent people?
I will try and address this comment as neutrally as I can, although it is difficult on such a politically charged issue. There are basically two issues. One is the spending cuts. The other is the macroeconomic performance. They are separate, but linked.
The spending cuts are not dismantling the welfare state. In fact, most of the spending cuts are not cuts, they are simply increases less than the rate of inflation. They are, however, causing unpleasant consequences, because people generally like their local library or their benefits etc. And of course everyone is innocent, no-one personally caused the financial crisis. On the other hand, many of the cuts are very justified; for example, people getting paid housing benefit of more than the average salary is utterly indefensible. Not all the cuts are like that, but no-one is getting “really” unpleasant consequences.
However, there are no two ways about it, the macroeconomic performance sucks. And this is causing really unpleasant consequences—long-term unemployment, stagnant wages, etc. And not just that, but as RichardKennaway says below, the bad economic performance means that despite the “austerity,” the budget deficit has not come down as much as the government had hoped. Some people say the bad economic performance is caused by the spending cuts, but it’s impossible to know—there are so many possible causes. For example, our largest trading partner is the Eurozone, which has had truly terrible economic performance. Alternatively, lots of people blame the Bank of England. This is the major issue. - most of the benefit cuts are very popular. To the extent that people don’t like the austerity programme, it is mostly because they think it is responsible for the bad economy.
In summary, I reject your framing—there are no would-be dismantlers of the welfare state. If the austerity measures are responsible for the bad economic performance, then they are (indirectly) bringing in really unpleasant consequences. Otherwise, not.
I can’t see anyone saying anything at that link, other than that the UK games industry got a tax concession from the UK government (which got around EU rules to do it). Context (absent from the linked blog post, including its comments) is that the UK government is also implementing a long-term austerity programme, and not doing very well at it, with a threat (I heard on the radio today) of losing its AAA credit rating.
What you are really asking is: