The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[neeko]

Interesting no one has specified a number yet, personally I am for the status quo, about 40% in the middle of the economic cycle, higher by a few points ina recession and lower during prosperity.

This has nothing to do with particular taxes, only the total amount of spending by govt. (nationalising things would increase the value, but regulating private monopolies to achieve the same aims would have similar effects but not change the amount of govt spending)

Sounds like sensible policy to me.

I guess my answer is, I don’t have enough information to know and it wouldn’t be my area of expertise if I did. I’d like to know where you think we are in the economic cycle?

It depends where you live in the UK.

London seems to be booming, some big cities are doing ok, the rest meh.

There are not many places which conform the mean of uk statistics.

[kukushkin88]

Interesting no one has specified a number yet, personally I am for the status quo, about 40% in the middle of the economic cycle, higher by a few points ina recession and lower during prosperity.

This has nothing to do with particular taxes, only the total amount of spending by govt. (nationalising things would increase the value, but regulating private monopolies to achieve the same aims would have similar effects but not change the amount of govt spending)

Sounds like sensible policy to me.

I guess my answer is, I don’t have enough information to know and it wouldn’t be my area of expertise if I did. I’d like to know where you think we are in the economic cycle?

It depends where you live in the UK.

London seems to be booming, some big cities are doing ok, the rest meh.

There are not many places which conform the mean of uk statistics.

Feels weird when the Peoples Democratic Republic of London props up the rest, in a country that wants Brexit.

[kukushkin88]

Are we able to work out which is the better indicator of how austerity has devastated the poorest in society?

Bit worried where this question will lead, but I honestly don't know the answer.....

Can you explain how austerity has devastated the poorest in society?

All of my posts yesterday/this morning in this thread are about it. Don’t worry about where the questions will lead. It will lead to the Office for National Stats, the BBC website, maybe the FT/The Times/Guardian and worst case The New Statesman.

I have read the posts, but are you just saying they are devastated because they have more debt, without knowing why they have more debt?

A big part of austerity is the government not spending money on essential public services. The problems that the funding previously helped to deal with don’t go anywhere though. So what happens? The articles I linked and the studies they cite seem to suggest the very poorest have been borrowing money to survive. The ONS said the poorest 10% of UK households spent 250% of what they earnt in financial year ending in 2017.

I'm still not there. I'm worried I am too far removed.

Can we have an example family?
What public service do they no longer have access to?
Where do they get it now?

Can you google it? It’s all there, if you can’t, I’ll try and help.

[kukushkin88]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/08/austerity-kills-life-expectancy-standstill-britain

From the guy who received the ultimate journalistic accolade, vitriolic/asinine abuse from Woodsey.

[Woodsey]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/08/austerity-kills-life-expectancy-standstill-britain

From the guy who received the ultimate journalistic accolade, vitriolic/asinine abuse from Woodsey.

Ohhhhh yes......the number 1 sanctimonious prick in the media, no doubt many of the whiny momentum idiots model themselves on him.

[Jon MW]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/08/austerity-kills-life-expectancy-standstill-britain

From the guy who received the ultimate journalistic accolade, vitriolic/asinine abuse from Woodsey.

Didn't we already cover this?

Yes, cuts to NHS funding will definitely cause some deaths but the alternative is to only ever increase funding at an ever increasing rate - and that's just not possible. In addition to the fact that the level that this is down to austerity and the level that it is down to the same global trend that everywhere else is having is completely unknown.

This article skates over every other country being in the same boat, as it does that the only country that is doing worse than us is the US - who didn't have austerity measures. It also overlooks some salient points like the measure they are using has only been consistently used since the 1980's, a period which encompasses a massive decrease in smoking as well as lead free petrol being introduced (bizarrely he even argues that not many people smoking currently means that smoking can't be the reason why life expectancy isn't increasing as fast when it would seem to me to argue the opposite point).

In a similar way  - yes some of the poor have been affected by austerity, some people have had benefits cut and some of them have taken out extra credit to cover it.

But in almost all the cases we can find evidence for online they are referencing the trial of Universal credit - the trial, so not affecting a significant proportion of the population - and the devastating effects of benefit  changes with figures and percentages are all predictions for when everyone is on it. If the government didn't change anything (some elements have already been changed) and implemented the same thing across the UK to every DWP benefit claimant and if the predictions were accurate - this would be devastating to the poor; but that's not the same as the statement that austerity was already devastating to the poor.

Pretty much all the figures you supply, or are in the link you supply lack context - or don't really show anything useful.

"The ONS said the poorest 10% of UK households spent 250% of what they earnt in financial year ending in 2017."
So what you're saying is - the poor are poor; because that's all that statistic proves.
What was the figure in 2009 (post crash pre austerity), or 2006 (pre crash) - or at a point during earlier recessions? - what is the figure in other countries? The figure by itself is just like the figure saying half of the poorest 20% in society are defaulting on debts - the only thing it shows without context are that the poor are poor.

In summary (on the evidence supplied):
1. austerity has killed people - but the amount is unclear, it's unclear whether austerity had any material effect on life expectancy
2. austerity has affected some poor people - but the amount is unclear, and whether it's enough to move percentage points on a national scale is also unclear
3. Poor people are definitely poor.

[Pokerpops]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/08/austerity-kills-life-expectancy-standstill-britain

From the guy who received the ultimate journalistic accolade, vitriolic/asinine abuse from Woodsey.

Didn't we already cover this?

Yes, cuts to NHS funding will definitely cause some deaths but the alternative is to only ever increase funding at an ever increasing rate - and that's just not possible. In addition to the fact that the level that this is down to austerity and the level that it is down to the same global trend that everywhere else is having is completely unknown.

This article skates over every other country being in the same boat, as it does that the only country that is doing worse than us is the US - who didn't have austerity measures. It also overlooks some salient points like the measure they are using has only been consistently used since the 1980's, a period which encompasses a massive decrease in smoking as well as lead free petrol being introduced (bizarrely he even argues that not many people smoking currently means that smoking can't be the reason why life expectancy isn't increasing as fast when it would seem to me to argue the opposite point).

In a similar way  - yes some of the poor have been affected by austerity, some people have had benefits cut and some of them have taken out extra credit to cover it.

But in almost all the cases we can find evidence for online they are referencing the trial of Universal credit - the trial, so not affecting a significant proportion of the population - and the devastating effects of benefit  changes with figures and percentages are all predictions for when everyone is on it. If the government didn't change anything (some elements have already been changed) and implemented the same thing across the UK to every DWP benefit claimant and if the predictions were accurate - this would be devastating to the poor; but that's not the same as the statement that austerity was already devastating to the poor.

Pretty much all the figures you supply, or are in the link you supply lack context - or don't really show anything useful.

"The ONS said the poorest 10% of UK households spent 250% of what they earnt in financial year ending in 2017."
So what you're saying is - the poor are poor; because that's all that statistic proves.
What was the figure in 2009 (post crash pre austerity), or 2006 (pre crash) - or at a point during earlier recessions? - what is the figure in other countries? The figure by itself is just like the figure saying half of the poorest 20% in society are defaulting on debts - the only thing it shows without context are that the poor are poor.

In summary (on the evidence supplied):
1. austerity has killed people - but the amount is unclear, it's unclear whether austerity had any material effect on life expectancy
2. austerity has affected some poor people - but the amount is unclear, and whether it's enough to move percentage points on a national scale is also unclear
3. Poor people are definitely poor.

Nailed it.

[Woodsey]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/08/austerity-kills-life-expectancy-standstill-britain

From the guy who received the ultimate journalistic accolade, vitriolic/asinine abuse from Woodsey.

Didn't we already cover this?

Yes, cuts to NHS funding will definitely cause some deaths but the alternative is to only ever increase funding at an ever increasing rate - and that's just not possible. In addition to the fact that the level that this is down to austerity and the level that it is down to the same global trend that everywhere else is having is completely unknown.

This article skates over every other country being in the same boat, as it does that the only country that is doing worse than us is the US - who didn't have austerity measures. It also overlooks some salient points like the measure they are using has only been consistently used since the 1980's, a period which encompasses a massive decrease in smoking as well as lead free petrol being introduced (bizarrely he even argues that not many people smoking currently means that smoking can't be the reason why life expectancy isn't increasing as fast when it would seem to me to argue the opposite point).

In a similar way  - yes some of the poor have been affected by austerity, some people have had benefits cut and some of them have taken out extra credit to cover it.

But in almost all the cases we can find evidence for online they are referencing the trial of Universal credit - the trial, so not affecting a significant proportion of the population - and the devastating effects of benefit  changes with figures and percentages are all predictions for when everyone is on it. If the government didn't change anything (some elements have already been changed) and implemented the same thing across the UK to every DWP benefit claimant and if the predictions were accurate - this would be devastating to the poor; but that's not the same as the statement that austerity was already devastating to the poor.

Pretty much all the figures you supply, or are in the link you supply lack context - or don't really show anything useful.

"The ONS said the poorest 10% of UK households spent 250% of what they earnt in financial year ending in 2017."
So what you're saying is - the poor are poor; because that's all that statistic proves.
What was the figure in 2009 (post crash pre austerity), or 2006 (pre crash) - or at a point during earlier recessions? - what is the figure in other countries? The figure by itself is just like the figure saying half of the poorest 20% in society are defaulting on debts - the only thing it shows without context are that the poor are poor.

In summary (on the evidence supplied):
1. austerity has killed people - but the amount is unclear, it's unclear whether austerity had any material effect on life expectancy
2. austerity has affected some poor people - but the amount is unclear, and whether it's enough to move percentage points on a national scale is also unclear
3. Poor people are definitely poor.

Nailed it.

As always the Owen Jones fanboy only posts stuff from google that supports his argument. If he had even bothered to read a couple of articles beyond the result he was looking for on his google search he would have found this also.

https://fullfact.org/health/austerity-120000-unnecessary-deaths/

In fact I’m sure he’s seen it before, but as it casts doubt on the agenda he is pushing he couldn’t be honest enough with himself to post it.

[kukushkin88]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/08/austerity-kills-life-expectancy-standstill-britain

From the guy who received the ultimate journalistic accolade, vitriolic/asinine abuse from Woodsey.

Didn't we already cover this?

Yes, cuts to NHS funding will definitely cause some deaths but the alternative is to only ever increase funding at an ever increasing rate - and that's just not possible. In addition to the fact that the level that this is down to austerity and the level that it is down to the same global trend that everywhere else is having is completely unknown.

This article skates over every other country being in the same boat, as it does that the only country that is doing worse than us is the US - who didn't have austerity measures. It also overlooks some salient points like the measure they are using has only been consistently used since the 1980's, a period which encompasses a massive decrease in smoking as well as lead free petrol being introduced (bizarrely he even argues that not many people smoking currently means that smoking can't be the reason why life expectancy isn't increasing as fast when it would seem to me to argue the opposite point).

In a similar way  - yes some of the poor have been affected by austerity, some people have had benefits cut and some of them have taken out extra credit to cover it.

But in almost all the cases we can find evidence for online they are referencing the trial of Universal credit - the trial, so not affecting a significant proportion of the population - and the devastating effects of benefit  changes with figures and percentages are all predictions for when everyone is on it. If the government didn't change anything (some elements have already been changed) and implemented the same thing across the UK to every DWP benefit claimant and if the predictions were accurate - this would be devastating to the poor; but that's not the same as the statement that austerity was already devastating to the poor.

Pretty much all the figures you supply, or are in the link you supply lack context - or don't really show anything useful.

"The ONS said the poorest 10% of UK households spent 250% of what they earnt in financial year ending in 2017."
So what you're saying is - the poor are poor; because that's all that statistic proves.
What was the figure in 2009 (post crash pre austerity), or 2006 (pre crash) - or at a point during earlier recessions? - what is the figure in other countries? The figure by itself is just like the figure saying half of the poorest 20% in society are defaulting on debts - the only thing it shows without context are that the poor are poor.

In summary (on the evidence supplied):
1. austerity has killed people - but the amount is unclear, it's unclear whether austerity had any material effect on life expectancy
2. austerity has affected some poor people - but the amount is unclear, and whether it's enough to move percentage points on a national scale is also unclear
3. Poor people are definitely poor.

Nailed it.

As always the Owen Jones fanboy only posts stuff from google that supports his argument. If he had even bothered to read a couple of articles beyond the result he was looking for on his google search he would have found this also.

https://fullfact.org/health/austerity-120000-unnecessary-deaths/

In fact I’m sure he’s seen it before, but as it casts doubt on the agenda he is pushing he couldn’t be honest enough with himself to post it.

It’s kind of how it works, there are usually two sides to discussions, I put across one side of the argument, everybody else (pretty much) does the other. It would be kind of weird if we all continually tried to refute our own argument. I do try, on my own argument but I don’t find much.

[kukushkin88]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/08/austerity-kills-life-expectancy-standstill-britain

From the guy who received the ultimate journalistic accolade, vitriolic/asinine abuse from Woodsey.

Didn't we already cover this?

Yes, cuts to NHS funding will definitely cause some deaths but the alternative is to only ever increase funding at an ever increasing rate - and that's just not possible. In addition to the fact that the level that this is down to austerity and the level that it is down to the same global trend that everywhere else is having is completely unknown.

This article skates over every other country being in the same boat, as it does that the only country that is doing worse than us is the US - who didn't have austerity measures. It also overlooks some salient points like the measure they are using has only been consistently used since the 1980's, a period which encompasses a massive decrease in smoking as well as lead free petrol being introduced (bizarrely he even argues that not many people smoking currently means that smoking can't be the reason why life expectancy isn't increasing as fast when it would seem to me to argue the opposite point).

In a similar way  - yes some of the poor have been affected by austerity, some people have had benefits cut and some of them have taken out extra credit to cover it.

But in almost all the cases we can find evidence for online they are referencing the trial of Universal credit - the trial, so not affecting a significant proportion of the population - and the devastating effects of benefit  changes with figures and percentages are all predictions for when everyone is on it. If the government didn't change anything (some elements have already been changed) and implemented the same thing across the UK to every DWP benefit claimant and if the predictions were accurate - this would be devastating to the poor; but that's not the same as the statement that austerity was already devastating to the poor.

Pretty much all the figures you supply, or are in the link you supply lack context - or don't really show anything useful.

"The ONS said the poorest 10% of UK households spent 250% of what they earnt in financial year ending in 2017."
So what you're saying is - the poor are poor; because that's all that statistic proves.
What was the figure in 2009 (post crash pre austerity), or 2006 (pre crash) - or at a point during earlier recessions? - what is the figure in other countries? The figure by itself is just like the figure saying half of the poorest 20% in society are defaulting on debts - the only thing it shows without context are that the poor are poor.

In summary (on the evidence supplied):
1. austerity has killed people - but the amount is unclear, it's unclear whether austerity had any material effect on life expectancy
2. austerity has affected some poor people - but the amount is unclear, and whether it's enough to move percentage points on a national scale is also unclear
3. Poor people are definitely poor.

It’s a good post, thanks for taking the time. I don’t think we did cover it. The only point I’ve been trying to make is that I believe austerity is a bad idea and an entirely failed policy. I made several posts as to why and no one replied. The metrics for the devastation might not be cast iron, it’s still early days for how it plays out though. I think I’ve made a decent enough case though. Can’t staff hospitals, LE buckingthe all time trend and doing worse than virtually everywhere. Every public service underfunded, under resourced and unable to function properly.

[kukushkin88]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/08/austerity-kills-life-expectancy-standstill-britain

From the guy who received the ultimate journalistic accolade, vitriolic/asinine abuse from Woodsey.

Didn't we already cover this?

Yes, cuts to NHS funding will definitely cause some deaths but the alternative is to only ever increase funding at an ever increasing rate - and that's just not possible. In addition to the fact that the level that this is down to austerity and the level that it is down to the same global trend that everywhere else is having is completely unknown.

This article skates over every other country being in the same boat, as it does that the only country that is doing worse than us is the US - who didn't have austerity measures. It also overlooks some salient points like the measure they are using has only been consistently used since the 1980's, a period which encompasses a massive decrease in smoking as well as lead free petrol being introduced (bizarrely he even argues that not many people smoking currently means that smoking can't be the reason why life expectancy isn't increasing as fast when it would seem to me to argue the opposite point).

In a similar way  - yes some of the poor have been affected by austerity, some people have had benefits cut and some of them have taken out extra credit to cover it.

But in almost all the cases we can find evidence for online they are referencing the trial of Universal credit - the trial, so not affecting a significant proportion of the population - and the devastating effects of benefit  changes with figures and percentages are all predictions for when everyone is on it. If the government didn't change anything (some elements have already been changed) and implemented the same thing across the UK to every DWP benefit claimant and if the predictions were accurate - this would be devastating to the poor; but that's not the same as the statement that austerity was already devastating to the poor.

Pretty much all the figures you supply, or are in the link you supply lack context - or don't really show anything useful.

"The ONS said the poorest 10% of UK households spent 250% of what they earnt in financial year ending in 2017."
So what you're saying is - the poor are poor; because that's all that statistic proves.
What was the figure in 2009 (post crash pre austerity), or 2006 (pre crash) - or at a point during earlier recessions? - what is the figure in other countries? The figure by itself is just like the figure saying half of the poorest 20% in society are defaulting on debts - the only thing it shows without context are that the poor are poor.

In summary (on the evidence supplied):
1. austerity has killed people - but the amount is unclear, it's unclear whether austerity had any material effect on life expectancy
2. austerity has affected some poor people - but the amount is unclear, and whether it's enough to move percentage points on a national scale is also unclear
3. Poor people are definitely poor.

It’s a good post, thanks for taking the time. I don’t think we did cover it. The only point I’ve been trying to make is that I believe austerity is a bad idea and an entirely failed policy. I made several posts as to why and no one replied. The metrics for the devastation might not be cast iron, it’s still early days for how it plays out though. I think I’ve made a decent enough case though. Can’t staff hospitals, LE buckingthe all time trend and doing worse than virtually everywhere. Every public service underfunded, under resourced and unable to function properly.

and no upside.

[kukushkin88]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/08/austerity-kills-life-expectancy-standstill-britain

From the guy who received the ultimate journalistic accolade, vitriolic/asinine abuse from Woodsey.

Didn't we already cover this?

Yes, cuts to NHS funding will definitely cause some deaths but the alternative is to only ever increase funding at an ever increasing rate - and that's just not possible. In addition to the fact that the level that this is down to austerity and the level that it is down to the same global trend that everywhere else is having is completely unknown.

This article skates over every other country being in the same boat, as it does that the only country that is doing worse than us is the US - who didn't have austerity measures. It also overlooks some salient points like the measure they are using has only been consistently used since the 1980's, a period which encompasses a massive decrease in smoking as well as lead free petrol being introduced (bizarrely he even argues that not many people smoking currently means that smoking can't be the reason why life expectancy isn't increasing as fast when it would seem to me to argue the opposite point).

In a similar way  - yes some of the poor have been affected by austerity, some people have had benefits cut and some of them have taken out extra credit to cover it.

But in almost all the cases we can find evidence for online they are referencing the trial of Universal credit - the trial, so not affecting a significant proportion of the population - and the devastating effects of benefit  changes with figures and percentages are all predictions for when everyone is on it. If the government didn't change anything (some elements have already been changed) and implemented the same thing across the UK to every DWP benefit claimant and if the predictions were accurate - this would be devastating to the poor; but that's not the same as the statement that austerity was already devastating to the poor.

Pretty much all the figures you supply, or are in the link you supply lack context - or don't really show anything useful.

"The ONS said the poorest 10% of UK households spent 250% of what they earnt in financial year ending in 2017."
So what you're saying is - the poor are poor; because that's all that statistic proves.
What was the figure in 2009 (post crash pre austerity), or 2006 (pre crash) - or at a point during earlier recessions? - what is the figure in other countries? The figure by itself is just like the figure saying half of the poorest 20% in society are defaulting on debts - the only thing it shows without context are that the poor are poor.

In summary (on the evidence supplied):
1. austerity has killed people - but the amount is unclear, it's unclear whether austerity had any material effect on life expectancy
2. austerity has affected some poor people - but the amount is unclear, and whether it's enough to move percentage points on a national scale is also unclear
3. Poor people are definitely poor.

Nailed it.

As always the Owen Jones fanboy only posts stuff from google that supports his argument. If he had even bothered to read a couple of articles beyond the result he was looking for on his google search he would have found this also.

https://fullfact.org/health/austerity-120000-unnecessary-deaths/

In fact I’m sure he’s seen it before, but as it casts doubt on the agenda he is pushing he couldn’t be honest enough with himself to post it.

It’s kind of how it works, there are usually two sides to discussions, I put across one side of the argument, everybody else (pretty much) does the other. It would be kind of weird if we all continually tried to refute our own argument. I do try, on my own argument but I don’t find much.

It’s very Donald Trump, you calling someone out for only having an interest in one side of a discussion. Have you read your own posts? I’m not that busy today, I’ll go and find a top 25 most idiotic and one eyed if you’d like?

[teddybloat]

i think its time to cede that the nhs model of universal health care free at the point of use simply doesnt work.

we just increase demand when you have untrammeled zero cost supply. the is no mechanism to direct treatment to those that would value it most - that's what prices should be doing.

i'm massively in favour of charging for most treatments, especially for conditions that are not massively impactful on quality of life. where to draw the line on cost / what treatments to charge for i'm not sure. but i am sure that having all treatments free of charge is simply not sustainable, nor should we desire it to be.

[kukushkin88]

Are we able to work out which is the better indicator of how austerity has devastated the poorest in society?

Bit worried where this question will lead, but I honestly don't know the answer.....

Can you explain how austerity has devastated the poorest in society?

All of my posts yesterday/this morning in this thread are about it. Don’t worry about where the questions will lead. It will lead to the Official for National Stats, the BBC website, maybe the FT/The Times/Guardian and worst case The New Statesman.

and maybe the odd contribution from here:

https://fullfact.org

We shoud all be mindful of potential bias though, even in a website that calls itself ‘FullFact.org’

For Woodsey, this is literally 2 days ago and I regularly caveat what I post with a qualifier that we should be looking out for bias. I expect you think you present a balanced view point?

[Doobs]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/08/austerity-kills-life-expectancy-standstill-britain

From the guy who received the ultimate journalistic accolade, vitriolic/asinine abuse from Woodsey.

Didn't we already cover this?

Yes, cuts to NHS funding will definitely cause some deaths but the alternative is to only ever increase funding at an ever increasing rate - and that's just not possible. In addition to the fact that the level that this is down to austerity and the level that it is down to the same global trend that everywhere else is having is completely unknown.

This article skates over every other country being in the same boat, as it does that the only country that is doing worse than us is the US - who didn't have austerity measures. It also overlooks some salient points like the measure they are using has only been consistently used since the 1980's, a period which encompasses a massive decrease in smoking as well as lead free petrol being introduced (bizarrely he even argues that not many people smoking currently means that smoking can't be the reason why life expectancy isn't increasing as fast when it would seem to me to argue the opposite point).

In a similar way  - yes some of the poor have been affected by austerity, some people have had benefits cut and some of them have taken out extra credit to cover it.

But in almost all the cases we can find evidence for online they are referencing the trial of Universal credit - the trial, so not affecting a significant proportion of the population - and the devastating effects of benefit  changes with figures and percentages are all predictions for when everyone is on it. If the government didn't change anything (some elements have already been changed) and implemented the same thing across the UK to every DWP benefit claimant and if the predictions were accurate - this would be devastating to the poor; but that's not the same as the statement that austerity was already devastating to the poor.

Pretty much all the figures you supply, or are in the link you supply lack context - or don't really show anything useful.

"The ONS said the poorest 10% of UK households spent 250% of what they earnt in financial year ending in 2017."
So what you're saying is - the poor are poor; because that's all that statistic proves.
What was the figure in 2009 (post crash pre austerity), or 2006 (pre crash) - or at a point during earlier recessions? - what is the figure in other countries? The figure by itself is just like the figure saying half of the poorest 20% in society are defaulting on debts - the only thing it shows without context are that the poor are poor.

In summary (on the evidence supplied):
1. austerity has killed people - but the amount is unclear, it's unclear whether austerity had any material effect on life expectancy
2. austerity has affected some poor people - but the amount is unclear, and whether it's enough to move percentage points on a national scale is also unclear
3. Poor people are definitely poor.

Nailed it.

As always the Owen Jones fanboy only posts stuff from google that supports his argument. If he had even bothered to read a couple of articles beyond the result he was looking for on his google search he would have found this also.

https://fullfact.org/health/austerity-120000-unnecessary-deaths/

In fact I’m sure he’s seen it before, but as it casts doubt on the agenda he is pushing he couldn’t be honest enough with himself to post it.

Woodsey seems an unlikely champion of balanced posting on the forum.

It doesn't really cast doubt.  They find someone that says you can't prove the link for balance, but if you read through my posts on this topic, there is no claim that there is definitive proof.  It is safe to say that it is more likely than not that the reduction in Government spending has caused tens of thousands of deaths that could have been avoided, after all, the data fits that hypothesis very well.  How likely, and exactly how many deaths is likely to remain uncertain.