United Kingdom government austerity programme

From Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
Jump to: navigation, search

The United Kingdom government deficit reduction programme is a series of sustained reductions in public spending, intended to reduce the government budget deficit and the welfare state in the United Kingdom. However, the NHS and education were "ringfenced" and protected from spending cuts.[1] In 2009, the term "age of austerity" was popularized by British Conservative leader David Cameron in his keynote speech to the Conservative Party forum in Cheltenham on 26 April 2009, in which he committed to end years of what he characterized excessive government spending.[2][3]

The programme was initiated in 2010 by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government. Its original stated goal was to, "achieve cyclically-adjusted current balance by the end of the rolling, five-year forecast period." At the June 2010 budget, the end of the forecast period was 2015–16. However, in 2014 the Treasury extended the proposed austerity period until at least 2018.[4] British austerity policies have since received pointed criticism from Leftist politicians and economists, and have prompted anti-austerity movements among citizens.[5]

Effects

Activists and researchers have linked budget cuts and sanctions against benefit claimants to increasing use of food banks. A study published in the British Medical Journal in 2015 found that each one percentage point increase in the rate of Jobseeker's Allowance claimants sanctioned was associated with a 0.09 percentage point rise in food bank use.[6]

However, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development found that people answering yes to the question "Have there been times in the past 12 months when you did not have enough money to buy food that you or your family needed?" decreased from 9.8% in 2007 to 8.1% in 2012,[7] leading some to say that the rise was due to both more awareness of food banks, and the government allowing Jobcentres to refer people to food banks when they were hungry, as opposed to previous governments.[8]

Criticism

The austerity programme has faced opposition from disability rights groups for disproportionately affecting disabled people. The under-occupancy penalty (commonly known as the "bedroom tax") is an austerity measure that has attracted particular criticism. This reduces the amount of housing benefit available for those living in a house with a bedroom that the Government believes they do not need, with activists arguing that two thirds of council houses affected by the policy are occupied with a person with a disability.[9]

Some have argued that austerity measures in the UK are fueling a growing gap between the old and the young which seems likely to undermine inter-generational fairness. Some have even gone as far as to comment that this is deliberate, part of a wider campaign to residualise the welfare state so that it mainly rewards people for paid work, particularly through the contributory state pension, while undermining the social safety net for people of working age.[10]

Feminist Fightback's "Cuts Are a Feminist Issue" featured in Issue 49 of Soundings Journal (published online in 2011 by the New Left Project) described the particular gendered impact of the austerity programme and "how the government's cutbacks in social provision are privatising work that is crucial to the sustenance of life". [11] In 2012, the Fawcett Society published "The Impact of Austerity on Women" which, in particular, criticised the Treasury for not collecting "sufficient data and analysis of the impact of either the raft of individual measures that have been announced in key budget statements since June 2010, nor on the cumulative impact of these measures on women’s equality across the board".[12] A briefing from the UK Women’s Budget Group on the cumulative distributional effects of cuts in public spending and tax changes on household income by gendered types over the period 2010-20 identified significant, and disproportionate, negative impacts of the government’s plans on women and low-income households (in which women predominate) despite claims that the burden would be shared equally.[13]

Peter Dominiczak (political editor at The Daily Telegraph) wrote that because spending on the NHS and foreign aid is ring-fenced, "other Whitehall departments will face savage cuts to their budgets."[14] However, some (such as Dr Louise Marshall in The Guardian) have questioned as to whether the National Health Service (NHS) really is exempt from austerity measures.[15]

See also

References

  1. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  2. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  3. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  4. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  5. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  6. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  7. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  8. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  9. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  10. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  11. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  12. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  13. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  14. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  15. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.