Axe Wednesday
Every cut in government spending is not only a financial decision, it's also a moral decision. Cuts in spending reflect our values, our commitment to a certain kind of society. If we decide to invest in a new generation of nuclear weapons while cutting incapacity benefits, that is a decision that merits some moral analysis. The chancellor's spending review document includes a 'distributional' analysis, which tries to assess the impact of the cuts across society: it's worth a look. Do these cuts hurt poorer people disproportionately? How do they impact upon working families? And what kind of society will be the consequence of these cuts? Will our streets be safer -- or less safe? Will our children be better educated -- is less well-educated?
Some commentators say we should embrace the age of austerity: many of these cuts are good for us. The government say we can't afford to send as many people to prison; many prisoner reform campaigners say we've already been sending too many people to prison, so that's progress. The government says we need to move from 'military intervention to conflict prevention': peace activists say that's a long-overdue step in the right direction. The government says we need to help people out of welfare and into work: many tax-payers say that's progress too, because it will incentivise full participation by more people and dis-incentivise 'opting out'.
What's your response to the chancellor's announcement? Do you see a silver lining or two in the fiscal cloud? Is it fair?
Some relevant links:
±«Óãtv summary analysis of the spending review.
Spending cuts 'are reckless gamble' says Alan Johnson.
Chancellor defends the 'fairness' of the cuts.
Spending review: the nation responds.
Institute for Fiscal Studies: the cuts are ''.
Adam Smith Institute: the government has made a
Child Poverty Action Group:
There will be full analysis of the morality of the cuts on both Sunday Sequence (Radio Ulster, 8.30am) and Sunday Morning Live (±«Óãtv One, 10.15 am) this week.
Comment number 1.
At 21st Oct 2010, deckard_aint_a_replicant wrote:Following the advice of the atheists on this blog, I will remain "passive". The only rational thing to do is to take 'no position' on the cuts. In fact the burden of proof is on anyone who thinks that I should take a position. Others can post, but they will never prove that I am wrong, and the burden of proof is clearly on them, because they will be taking a position, and I am not making any claims at all.
It's incredible to assume without argument that someone should take a position. In fact I don't need to prove that I shouldn't take a position. And I don't need to prove that anyone else should prove that I should take a position before I take a position. I haven't claimed very much, so the burden of proof is on everyone else.
In this way, I will win every debate on the Government's economic policy.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 21st Oct 2010, Dave wrote:I will win every debate on the Government's economic policy
...but you will still suffer the impact of the cuts just like everyone else.
You may keep your head in the sand but your ass is still exposed.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 21st Oct 2010, The Enquirer wrote:/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/10/will_the_cuts_change_the_role.html
This is ironic given the push to get women out of the home via the slanted child benefit removal and the financial incentives for poorer mums to send their 2-years old to nursery, rather than being taught at home.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 21st Oct 2010, deckard_aint_a_replicant wrote:I won't take anything less than definitive, irrefutable evidence. Something that proves the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Dave's post hasn't a smidgen of evidence that the cuts are warranted or unjustifiable. Or anything in between.
Nor has he provided evidence that our opinions matter one jot.
Next!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 21st Oct 2010, Ryan_ wrote:Deck, Taking "no position" on the subject, doesn't equal you "will win every debate on the Government's economic policy". It just means your neutral and to add to Daves analogy, just because you put your head's in the sand doesn't mean you won't feel the thrust of George Osbournes policies
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 21st Oct 2010, Dagsannr wrote:D-a-a-r,
Your posts are regulary bizarre, meandering and have a touch of gish galloping to them, but now you've really crowned it all.
Attempting to compare comment on economic policy with the request of atheists that you put up or shut up is laughable.
In fact, your insistance that you'll ignore the evidences you don't like, remain 'passive' and pretend that the events won't effect you is a really good example of blind religious thinking and enhances your reputation.
Well done!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 22nd Oct 2010, deckard_aint_a_replicant wrote:Oh, I see. I can take a position on the economy without proof that would pass an "outsider" test?
And if I refuse to believe that Socrates and Tiberius and Gaius Gracchi existed, is the burden of proof on you or me? And I refuse to believe that JFK and Kruschev made decisions in the Cuban Missile crisis, until someone convinces me that all the key decisions weren't made by "men in smoke filled rooms", is that an assertion? Or just a refusal to take a position?
Or is it possible that you haven't thought the issues through? That you give Theism special treatment.
And I've criticised Theism many times on the blog, do try to keep up!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)