Search results

since it lead to a decade of cut services while increasing spending, maybe we should look for an alternative.

indeed we did, i wasnt questioning that really. just the austerity cliche that is too easy when spending didnt drop in real terms. Osborne used it cheaply to pretend he was doing more than he was, it stuck. meanwhile how services are supposed to be funded goes unanswered.

some positive input. you're accepting that the spending went up in areas. so we saw a policy of transfering to welfare and healthcare, away from non-core services. the first part is popular, the second not so much. i havent looked the real-terms for each department, you're probably right...

and some wont accept the spending went up. so nothing is challenged, no one understands how public money is spent or why their service has been cut over others. carry on with a cliche instead :shrug:

what other sort of spending is there from government than public spending. ???

you need to accept public spending increased 26% in those years, then follow on from your very good question, where did it all go? if a service is cut, why when there was more money?

i said spending went up. £673bn to £849bn between those years, which is about inline with inflation. also the national debt rose substantially to cover a chunk of the spending.

yeah thats terrible. question i ask is why was that cut, why wasnt there a legal statute to fund such a service? fact is budgets where held or even increased, in no year were there net cuts to public spending (except 2014 there was a real terms reduction). authorities had to suffle the deck to...

austerity never got beyond 0.1b. a buzzword Osborne used to keep the his camp onside while doing next to nothing, picked up as a criticism because its a cheap soundbite.