> set back the economic recovery which was underway in the first half of 2010

This was really obvious at the time. The economy was recovering slowly, and then the Tories got elected and induced a recession. It kinda amazes me that this wasn't obvious in advance of their actions, but whatevs.

It was very much an ideological driven cost cutting exercise.

It was also what all three parties proposed. I remember an IFS report showing actual cuts were less than both Tory and labour plans and slightly more than Lib Dem plans, but if you go back to 2010 you had a labour chancellor promising to cut more than thatcher.

It’s common in hindsight to say “if only labour were elected”

Also worth remembering that in 2015 the country said “we want more Tory”. The coalition wasn’t Tory enough.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/mar/25/alistair-da...

There was also that whole Brexit and "let's give those billions to the NHS" kerfuffle. Maybe that had something more to do with the recession.

That was six years later, so seems unlikely.

That wikipedia article is outrageous, just look at its sources list -- it's almost entirely a rewriting of guardian articles.

I have never seen something so revisionary on wikipedia. This is just left-wing propaganda.

There is zero analysis of the macroeconomic context, zero analysis of austery as an economic policy. Just an endless series of newspapers attacking the government in power for the economic consequences of a economic crisis.

One of the most egregious misrepresentations of an issue i've ever seen. Its just writing up what newspapers said; i can't believe it.

Reading that article can you answer: (1) what the economic policies called 'austerity' were? (2) what the economic aims of these polices were? (3) whether these aims were successful? (4) why were these the aims? (5) what were alternative policies?

There are 184 references.

An encyclopedia is a place where secondary research on a topic by disinterested professionals is summarised.

You could not submit to an academic journal with most of your controversial claims referenced to newspapers. An enclopedia operates at a higher standard of research than academic journal articles -- it should summarise books/etc. about those articles.

This article is essentially poor-quality primary research which quotes MPs and newspapers to argue a case about austerity. That's fine for a BA sociology degree -- it's bad for a MSc, it's disqualifying at PhD level, and has zero plac e in an encylcopedia

I think the time has long past when you could rely on wikipedia for a disinterested viewpoint on anything political or subjects that are part of the "culture wars".

FT is hardly a left wing rag

https://www.ft.com/content/1670a3d2-880f-11e2-8e3c-00144feab...

https://archive.is/t1wU0

Hindsight is wonderful, in 2010 the choice was austerity, austerity or austerity, there was no alternate voice, but that doesn’t mean it was the right move

Newspapers are not the place to find research on the effects of policy; yes, even the FT

>> (3) whether these aims were successful?

With the exception of Germany post-WW2, has there ever been an instance where austerity was judged to be somewhat successful?

There are hundreds of examples of austerity, which could be added to the wiki page as a success?

Austerity is often times the least bad option when compared to hyperinflation and a complete withdrawal of creditors. Neither were realistic scenarios for the UK, so I agree that austerity as a ideological goal like it was in the UK doesn't make any sense. As far as successes go, Greece and Spain can be considered successes as they were legitimately at risk of losing their Eurozone status.

I can't think of a case where austerity wasnt successful. In the UK's case it was overwhelmingly successful.

That it didnt meet the goals given to it by opposition parties and newspapers is irrelevant.

The original goal was simple:

Reduce the deficit sufficiently to promote confidence in the market for UK debt in order to deliver growth in the economy.

You claim this was overwhelmingly successful?

How? Where would we see evidence of success? Would it show up in a change in bond yield trajectories post GFC? (It doesn’t). Would we see a change in the growth rate of the economy post GFC? (We didn’t).

So how is it possible it was not just successful but overwhelmingly so when we can’t detect the proposed benefits in the observed data?

Austerity had nothing to do with growth.

It was to reduce the increasing deficit from +12.5% GDP YoY to flat, in the middle of essentially a "deficit crisis" caused by the need to bail out the financial industry to prevent a whole-economy crisis.

Arguments can be made about how far and how fast the deficit needed to decrease; but the policy was overwhelmingly successful.

The government was able to maintain non-trivial deficits for a decade after the policy -- precisely because of it. Only people with zero understanding of the issue maintain that there was any non-austerity alternative.

Labour's policy was "less" not different. There was no non-austerity option for the UK, with such dramatic deficit increases -- ie., 25% of GDP in <2yr.

Few other countries experienced this. The US did not.

The financial crisis should've caused a depression in the UK, and a total wipeout of our economy in a whole economy crisis. The bailouts prevented this, then austerity prevented the ensuing deficit crisis.

Both policies were not about "growth" they were about preventing total economic metldown in the UK. We were the worst country in the world affected, these conditions were unique and severe.

>> Austerity had nothing to do with growth.

George Osborne originally said:

>> Mr Deputy Speaker, let me now turn to the measures in the Budget designed to deliver this accelerated reduction in the structural deficit. The coalition Government believes that the bulk of the reduction must come from lower spending rather than higher taxes. The country has overspent; it has not been under-taxed. Our approach is supported by the international evidence, compiled by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the International Monetary Fund and others, which found that consolidations delivered through lower spending are more effective at correcting deficits and boosting growth than consolidations delivered through tax increases.

>> “and boosting growth”

I’m having a hard time seeing this as anything other than intellectual dishonesty on your part.

Given this is HN, I’ll be curious instead of judgemental. Help me interpret what you said about austerity had nothing to do with growth?

It's literally the first sentence of your own quote:

> Mr Deputy Speaker, let me now turn to the measures in the Budget designed to deliver this accelerated reduction in the structural deficit.