British prime minister says austerity cuts are permanent

[Hannah Bell]

Prime Minister David Cameron stressed last week that the austerity measures being imposed by the Conservative/Liberal Democrats coalition government are in place permanently and will not be reversed.

Government departments, with the exception of health and international development, have been instructed to present proposals for cuts of between 25 and 40 percent ahead of the Comprehensive Spending Review to be announced on October 20. The National Health Service has been instructed to find billions of pounds of cuts in the form of “efficiency savings” on top of a £6 billion package of cuts that were announced when the coalition came into office.

Cameron was asked by a female fire-fighter in the audience to give his assurances that once the economic crisis was over, the spending cuts would be reversed. She detailed that “sweeping cuts” had been implemented in her local fire service since 2003. The result, she went on, was a marked increase in the deaths of fire fighters, and an increase in deaths as a result of fire. She pointed out that further cuts now would also result in even more fire engines being taken away from the service.

Cameron said in reply, “The direct answer to your question, should we cut things now and go back later and try and restore them later, I think we should be trying to avoid that approach...people should open their minds and find new ways of doing more for less. We’re going to have to change the way we work”.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/aug2010/came-a10.shtml

[villager]

1. well, for the "little people," sure. That is, for as long as they take it all lying down.

n/t

[RandomThoughts]

2. And he says it why? If they were permanent

Why would he feel the need to say that?

Actually he is saying it to get people to think they are permanent. I think nothing is permanent is far more accurate, although he gives an arguement for continuing those ideas.

It is ridiculous that at the same time many people want work, there is not enough 'goods' produced to go around. It has nothing to do with what is possible, it is an intent to keep people scared of not having enough. It is a system problem created by the intents of that system.


In my life I don't accept austerity measures, when they are not shared justly.

Once there is more demand then production, then people can go back to thinking the idea of creating efficiency by scarcity is a good idea.

Capitalism collapses in on itself when production gets above demand, because suddenly 'the profit motive' is no longer to supply goods, but to not supply goods, or to create demand in areas that are most profitable not most needed.

However there fix is to shut down factories and lower production that way, instead of increasing demand by societal decisions on producing some items that will help society, but may not only make money for some group.

[Ken Burch]

3. Does Cameron actually have the power to make that so?

And will it open up space to Labour's left if that party accepts this?

And is there a way to "do more for less" with FIRE prevention?

(or is that code for "from now on, we'll BILL you for keeping your house from completely burning down"?)

[malaise]

5. No

Let him run his mouth.

[Karmadillo]

4. Kick

nt

[truebrit71]

6. Which means that the Cons will be out of power for a generation after they kick in..

...hopefully..http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/29/mervyn-king-warns-election-victor

[marmar]

7. Global Shock Doctrine is the new black

nt

[glitch]

9. Damn criminal shame, the new black could've been green.

These opportunity costs might just kill us.

[unhappycamper]

8. Unpave your roads. Turn off city lights. Close libraries. Fire teachers.

Hey, it's change. :shrug:

[starroute]

10. We used to worry atomic war would send us back to the stone age

Now it seems that we're perfectly capable of doing that all by ourselves.