Looking Back On 14 Years Of Austerity - For What?

nightowl

The growing number of millionaires may not directly affect the lives of poorer people but a society with such extremes of wealth, with the gap between the richest and poorest ever widening, is a recipe for dissatisfaction and the growing feelings of alienation amongst younger gestations who can never hope to own their own home or achieve security of employment. This cannot be healthy.

Exactly. And the constant reference to hard work, with its implication that the young are idle, plus the ridiculous price of housing (which, before I am lambasted, I am not saying is the fault of individual home owners) contribute to the alienation of the young and the poor. Austerity only makes their lives harder.

Has the OP been back to this thread?

nightowl

The growing number of millionaires may not directly affect the lives of poorer people but a society with such extremes of wealth, with the gap between the richest and poorest ever widening, is a recipe for dissatisfaction and the growing feelings of alienation amongst younger gestations who can never hope to own their own home or achieve security of employment. This cannot be healthy.

I always find these discussions interesting from different perspectives. I don't see anyone here, who might be a millionaire, being boastful or self-congratulatory, but simply saying how it was for them in life.

If poorer people believe that the only way people become rich is to deliberately do so at the expense of others, then are they themselves not unconsciously exhibiting envy and thereby creating a barrier to their own success? What I mean is that neither extreme is doing anything wrong on purpose, and in my opinion, neither extreme need exhibit smugness on the one side nor resentment on the other. In fact, are sides even necessary at all?

I'm sorry if it makes those who have less money feel that they have failed. Perhaps it would make sense to explore how their negative feelings towards the wealth of others could be changed into something more positively productive for them.

Austerity hasn't helped the SEND process in this country either. Over the years, better knowledge and understanding has resulted in more children being diagnosed with various conditions which come under the SEND umbrella. Therefore more money was needed to keep pace with this increase and used to build more specialist schools and train teachers to staff them. This hasn't happened. We now have a situation whereby parents with a SEND child have to battle for years, in the majority of cases, to get a fitting education for their child. It all boils down to money and little thought is given to the child at the heart of this matter. Tony Blair trumpeted "Education, education, education" as his mantra but did very little to help those with SEND and that has continued to this day.

That's true Sarnia, more money is certainly needed for SEND children, but following my thoughts above if you like, more money is also needed for the extremely talented and gifted children at the other end of the scale, or we won't have entrepreneurs and innovators for the future.

Joseann

That's true Sarnia, more money is certainly needed for SEND children, but following my thoughts above if you like, more money is also needed for the extremely talented and gifted children at the other end of the scale, or we won't have entrepreneurs and innovators for the future.

True. Gifted children used to come under SEND but may not these days. I wonder if there is a mindset that the naturally gifted and bright children 'will get on anywhere' so are not as urgent as the children with learning issues. It's a shame if that's the case and a very short-sighted view.

But I didn’t say anything Joseann about people being boastful or others displaying envy or ‘creating barriers to their own success’. That sounds like blaming those not doing so well for not doing better.

I think suggesting that people should ‘explore their own feelings towards the wealth of others’ is unbelievably patronising and spectacularly misses the point that it is far harder for younger generations to succeed in the society we have allowed to flourish - dog eats dog, everyone for themselves, politicians whose only remit is to pocket as much as possible at the expense of the rest of us. There is simply no concept of public service in politics any longer.

I don't think the gifted children are on the Special Needs Register for funding Sarnia, but schools should have a MAGT policy. Someone will correct this if I'm wrong.

One thing for sure you are not going to improve your prospects unless you work hard, not only that you need to make the right decisions, starting from school days.
It’s tough at the top in any organization so don’t aim for that if you are average, learn a skill that someone will pay you for, hairdresser, accounts, chef, anything that gets you out of the minimum wage trap.

nightowl I wasn't suggesting that people themselves should explore their negative feelings towards wealth, but more that society or the system should set out to do so. If you jumped to the immediate conclusion that I was being unbelievably superior, then that confirms the thinking going on here.

Calendargirl

Covid didn’t exactly help though, did it?

The way it was handled didn’t help either, so much money was wasted and ended up in the wrong hands.

PS sorry nightowl it wasn't specifically you in that quote at 8.08, but boasting and smug were mentioned somewhere more than once.

nightowl

But I didn’t say anything Joseann about people being boastful or others displaying envy or ‘creating barriers to their own success’. That sounds like blaming those not doing so well for not doing better.

I think suggesting that people should ‘explore their own feelings towards the wealth of others’ is unbelievably patronising and spectacularly misses the point that it is far harder for younger generations to succeed in the society we have allowed to flourish - dog eats dog, everyone for themselves, politicians whose only remit is to pocket as much as possible at the expense of the rest of us. There is simply no concept of public service in politics any longer.

I didn't say anything about boasting or envy either. That is the sort of thing that is often read into comments about unfairness. I very seldom mention my own circumstances on threads like these, as they are not remotely relevant. If it helps though, I'm not poor, have never really struggled, I own my own home with no mortgage, and - surprise surprise - have worked hard all my life, and still do at 65. That doesn't mean that I can't see that life is bloody unfair, and that the fact that house prices in particular are insanely expensive is directly affecting those who also work hard but will never have the chance to buy a home. I would not be anywhere near as comfortable if I had to pay rent, as the increased SPA means that I am still waiting for the pension that others got at 60. Many people are facing a retirement on the breadline because the housing market is stacked against them, and deliberate austerity measures make their lives miserable.

Workers' rights have been eroded, zero hours contracts are hampering so many people when it comes to getting mortgages and the security that that brings, people such as HCAs and teaching assistants are having to use foodbanks, and lots of people are forced into dependency (and the resulting loss of control over their lives) by a system that allows employers to pay low wages and have them made up by Universal Credit.

I'm sorry if it makes those who have less money feel that they have failed. Perhaps it would make sense to explore how their negative feelings towards the wealth of others could be changed into something more positively productive for them.
I certainly don't feel that I have failed, and I don't have negative feelings towards the wealth of others . Talk about projecting! Any negative feelings I do have are towards those who don't understand that austerity is cruel and unnecessary, and think that 'sheer hard work' is exclusive to those who have made a lot of money, or that there can't be austerity because there has been an increase in the number of millionaires.

The Tories are far more concerned about millionaires than about the poor, which is, of course, the driving force behind austerity. In the context of this thread, that needs to be said, and saying it has nothing to do with envy or resentment. I agree that suggesting it has is patronising and tone deaf.

The quote you decided to highlight Doodledog was NOT actually from me but another poster who said, it’s not helpful for those who have succeeded financially to say that they got where they are by sheer hard work, because it makes those who have less money feel that they have failed.

Joseann

PS sorry nightowl it wasn't specifically you in that quote at 8.08, but boasting and smug were mentioned somewhere more than once.

I used both words, although not in the context you suggest.

I said (as an aside) that luck influences a lot of how we do in life, and mentioned a good education as one of those things. It is surely undeniable that people on here boast about their excellent educations - even after 60 years or so, which is why I mentioned it. That is not the same as saying they boast about the money in the bank, though.

I also said that it comes across as smug when people say that austerity is somehow mitigated by the fact that there are more millionaires than there used to be. It does. Again, that is not the same as saying that anyone is smug about their wealth or anything else.

Words get twisted so often on here.

Joseann

The quote you decided to highlight Doodledog was NOT actually from me but another poster who said, it’s not helpful for those who have succeeded financially to say that they got where they are by sheer hard work, because it makes those who have less money feel that they have failed.

I didn't say the highlighted quote was from you, or (intentionally) imply that it was, and I'm sorry of you read it that way.

No problems Doodledog. I always respect your articulate posts.
In discussions such as these, I think it is interesting to analyse mindsets and how different people react. You're right context gets lost as personal situations and opinions are often misinterpreted.

Joseann thank you for clarifying.

All the supposed fiscal savings, all the very real suffering - which is still with us - why was it all for nothing? And just where has all the "necessary financial savings" gone?

Thanks a lot Cameron, Osborne, Clegg and the rest of the Coalition crew who deliberately and willfully foisted this horror story on us.

It seems to me that this horror story was foisted on us by a combination of adhering to a dominant economic dogma and to the ideology connected to that dogma of a belief in the ability of 'the market' to solve economic problems, the cult of 'individual choice' and a belief that state intervention not only crowded out private enterprise but also produced a dependency culture which made people unwilling or unable to work to 'better' themselves or solve their own economic problems. Is it any wonder that the grocer's daughter from Grantham, reared by a Methodist preacher, was deeply attracted to these ideas when Methodism taught that idleness was a moral failing, and that its work ethic was based based on two of Wesley's precepts; Gain all you can and Save all you can (but had sidelined his third; Give all you can. By which he was encouraging the distribution of wealth to the poor)

(Fascinating paper here on the evolution of the Methodist work ethic: www.academia.edu/774866/_Beruf_Calling_and_the_Methodist_work_ethichttps://www.academia.edu/774866/_Beruf_Calling_and_the_Methodist_work_ethic )

Basically these beliefs have informed tory thought since 1979.

And, of course, there was a deep distrust of 'socialism', with the truly terrible excesses of the USSR in the very recent past leading to a fear of the dangers of 'state control'.

So, encouraged by an economic theory based on the belief that markets were self regulating and beneficial, and that lifting the dead and wasteful hand of the state would free us all to become thrusting and successful entrepreneurs, made efficient by the effect of market competitiveness and providing better services and better growth in the economy the tories have been slashing away at public spending ever since.

I have often thought that much economic theory is based on wishful thinking rather than reality. Neo-classical theory, which is what dominates now, regards 'economic man' as a rational actor whereas we know that we can be far from rational. 'Economic man' doesn't always behave the way that theory says he will...

The theory behind austerity was not only based on neo-classical economic theory, but also on a misconception, or failure to understand, of how national finances work (it's neither a household, nor a business) or how money flows in the economy.

It was so obvious that radically cutting state spending would impair the economy because it would put public sector workers and public sector suppliers (who were all private sector businesses) out of work with no immediate alternatives open to them. And that simultaneously cutting welfare benefits to force people into non existent jobs would not only impoverish them, but also take much needed money out of the economy.

(good blog here about the economic effects of raising welfare payments: blogs.lse.ac.uk/covid19/2021/07/20/welfare-as-fiscal-policy-why-benefits-should-be-raised-not-lowered-during-recessions/)

I acquit the tories of deliberately inflicting the horrors of austerity on the UK. Dominant economic theory said they were correct, their ignorance of the mechanics of money flows around an economy and their ideological beliefs drove them.

Now we've seen the dire results perhaps we start making better political choices... (though I have to confess that Labour, that none of the political parties, offer much that is different)

Not a bottemless pit.

But I agree that some areas such as mental health and SEND should get more, maybe a lot more, funding.

flappergirl

The Tories have ensured that the generation coming through will have no teeth by the time they are 40, no homes to call their own, soul destroying zero contract jobs and terrifying hospital waiting lists.

They will have no free movement in Europe and should they wish to start a small business trading with Europe they will suffer extra costs and red tape which will negate the whole point. The Tories have not been caretakers of the country's future on any level.

This is in contrast to the inherited wealth and privilege (George Osborne, Jacob Rees Mogg, David Cameron for example) that many of them enjoy, safe in the knowledge that their children and grandchildren will live life with impunity at the very top of society.

They should hang their heads in shame.

I couldn't agree more with you

Maisie you can quote economic theory all you like but I simply don’t accept that providing more services to the population free of charge to everyone actually works for the UK. Too much is given away making the rich richer, to balance the books in the UK taxation rates would need to be much higher

It probably works for the US and other countries where services are free to the poor and those that can afford it pay for those services through insurance or directly as needed. In many cases lower taxation rates enable higher earning workers to afford to buy the services they want.

If taxes were higher there could be more efficient social services that allowed everyone to get the things they need. It would only work if everyone had to pay in, but there is no reason why it shouldn't work if a social contract were drawn up and properly enforced.

In countries without a welfare state people have no choice but to work until they drop, can only be educated if their parents can pay for them to learn to read, and if people take ill they simply die. That is surely not what people want in the UK?

It doesn’t work for the USA. Children’s Services go cap in hand to businesses to beg for funds.
We can afford to fund good public services, in fact as evidence before our eyes shows, we can’t afford not to
Look at the Sweden, high taxes, good services, lower crime, fewer mh/drug problems

It’s very easy to call for higher taxes if that would have little effect on you. When people call for higher taxes they generally want high earners to pay more tax, and for capital gains tax and dividend tax to be increased.

Yes, and if the basics are provided (health, education etc) then people have more to spend anyway, as although they are paying more tax they don't need to fork out for those things themselves.