In Britain, Austerity Is Changing Everything (barf Alert)

New York Times ^ | May 28nd 2018 | New York Times

[Cronos]

you do realize that

1. Brits voted for Brexit not for fear of Mohammedan immigrants but for EU migrants from Central Europe
   
   
2. The Mohammedan immigrants they have already came there from British colonies. The numbers didn't go up after 2011 as the migrants were stopped at Calais

[Cronos]

The story is only partial. The UK, ever since the 1950s has been heavily socialist. It set up the NHS (you think Obamacare is bad??) and only got worse from 1997 onwards

In 2010 and I believe even know, it had/has more public sector workers as a % of working age population than Sweden or Italy

A lot of the public money tossed at local government was wasted -- like on the local museum written about in this article -- there was no need for that. Public spaces yes, but instead they spent on councilors salaries and getting more public sector workers to do ever more useless stuff.

[usconservative]

Sounds like they need more Muslim Migrants to boost their economy.

Well played.

[Winniesboy]

Yes, notice how the “austerity” ALWAYS is pointed out (true or false) to involve the buildings and “services” that most people approve and support . . police, library, parks

Unless the budget was cut to zero, or the powers that be are pocketing all tax monies, then the $$$ must be being spent on individual welfare cases.

It's not an either/or. Public spending was cut across the board, including substantial cuts to benefit budgets, when George Osborne became Chancellor after the 2010 election. They were cut with the intention of reducing and eventually cancelling the budget deficit. There were also large cuts to the numbers employed in the Civil Service (the permanent, non-political administrative service).

The only budgets protected from cuts were the NHS and (bizarrely) international development, although the latter was in any case tiny compared with the overall spend, so that was little more than a token.

These cuts continued, and in some cases increased, throughout the 2010-15 Conservative/Lib Dem coalition, the 2015-16 Cameron and 2016-present May Conservative governments. To date, however, the reduction in the deficit, which was the original objective, has been slight.

Whether this amounts to 'austerity' is, of course, a subjective judgement.

The main reason why benefit budgets have been so difficult to control is not because of immigration but because of the ageing population, since the bulk of beneficiaries are the elderly (especially the universal state pension). The net fiscal effect of immigration (income from working immigrants offset against benefit spend) has been relatively marginal.

[Chode]

"The net fiscal effect of immigration (income from working immigrants offset against benefit spend) has been relatively marginal."

and of all those NOT working???