| Revision as of 15:26, 1 July 2012 editThom2002 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,417 edits bias← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:36, 11 June 2024 edit undoMostlythunder (talk | contribs)18 edits →'Failed fiscal policy' why?: ReplyTag: Reply | ||
| (43 intermediate revisions by 24 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header}} | |||
| {{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C| | ||
| {{WikiProject Social Work|importance=High}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom|importance=mid|attention=yes}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Copied |from=United Kingdom coalition government (2010–present) |from_oldid=516039872 |to=United Kingdom government austerity programme |diff= 516084179 }} | |||
| ==Expansion of 'effects' section drastically needed== | |||
| The effects section only covers the impact of the program on food bank use, but the austerity program had all sorts of highly important effects (economic, social, political) about which there are many different views. I think it needs major expansion urgently, and have added a template on this note, but unfortunately I don't consider myself knowledgeable enough about this topic to do it myself. ] (]) 14:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ==Removing the quotes== | |||
| ==Effect on EU Referendum?== | |||
| Unless I recive some solid objections I'm going to remove the quotes since at the moment they seem pretty slanted.] (]) 18:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| As we have the effect on the general elections, shouldn't there be a section on how it affected the EU Referendum, namely the NHS bus? ] (]) 16:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Expansion of 'Arts and Culture' == | |||
| :I suppose you haven't read the prose? I wouldn't blame you, it's a bit dense. Suffice it to say that this article ranks roughly alongside Labour party election campaign literature in terms of editorial bias. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 19:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, I am a new editor to Misplaced Pages and I'm thinking about austerity and the impact of arts and culture. I haven't found much written about this, so I would greatly appreciate any help and/or collaboration if anybody is interested as I think increasing visibility of this topic is so important, particularly as a result of COVID-19. | |||
| ::You don't understand the source of the bias: it is ]. All your comment serves to do its reveal that you are a Tory voter. I find it irritating that who make zero effort to add to the article and track developments sit in judgment over me. Look at the edit history, I've made virtually ''every single one of them''. That shows you how much other users actually care about this topic. Cut me some slack, I can tone it down if you give me a chance. ~ ] (]) 22:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| My edits to the section so far have been rather surface level but I am hoping to expand this to explore the impact of austerity on different and more specific areas of art and culture (creating sub-sections on libraries, museums, theatre etc). | |||
| Please let me know if you have any information or know of any resources that could help me, of if you would be interested in collaborating!] (]) 12:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion == | |||
| :::You do not have to be a Tory voter to want Misplaced Pages to meet its ]. It doesn't matter what the source of the bias is (though I'm glad that you acknowledge that the article is biased): it shouldn't be there at all. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 08:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: | |||
| * ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2022-10-25T17:54:10.570319 | Liz Truss official portrait (cropped)2.jpg --> | |||
| Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 17:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == First austerity period == | |||
| ::::That's right, Misplaced Pages articles cannot be biased, whether that is a Keynesian bias or any other kind of bias. ] (]) 12:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| "UK government budget surplus in 2001-2 was followed by many years of budget deficit" | |||
| ==Massive bias== | |||
| The statement is too broad and the citation given is simply not contemporary nor even appropriate to the timeframe being referred. If the statement is true, it should be rephrased and a citation referring to a massive overspend between 2003-2007 is required. ] (]) 05:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| I understand that the editor who created this page and who contributed most of the content has been indefinitely blocked, in part for failing to adhere to ] on other articles. More importantly, the text itself is clearly hopelessly skewed - there are a number of arguments that have been made both for and against the UK austerity program, but this article is simply dripping with negativity towards it, in almost every paragraph. With the original author off the scene, there is the possibility of bringing this back to a proper encyclopedic article on the topic, but it would be a massive job. ] (]) 15:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :The citation in question, titled "UK government deficit widens unexpectedly in August" is dated from 2018 - and completely out of context to the paragraph timeframe ] (]) 05:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == 'Failed fiscal policy' why? == | |||
| The first sentence says that this was a failed fiscal policy, but no reference is given, and it is not explained why this assessment has been made. If the stated objectives were to reduce the deficit and begin debt falling then to some extent those objectives were met. | |||
| The article lacks some neutrality. ] (]) 08:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :The 'failure' of austerity can be reasoned in terms of the fact that despite significant cuts, it did not significantly shrink the size of the state. This is because of low growth from 2008 onwards. It seems that the low growth is separate from the reduced public spending (I.e. simply undoing the cuts would not restore the growth and close the deficit). | |||
| :This explanation is in an article in The Times by Paul Johnson, 10 June. ] (]) 01:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes this seems to have been added by an anonymous user very recently, I've removed as I think you're right its not neutral ] (]) 19:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 19:36, 11 June 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United Kingdom government austerity programme article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | Text and/or other creative content from this version of United Kingdom coalition government (2010–present) was copied or moved into United Kingdom government austerity programme with . The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Expansion of 'effects' section drastically needed
The effects section only covers the impact of the program on food bank use, but the austerity program had all sorts of highly important effects (economic, social, political) about which there are many different views. I think it needs major expansion urgently, and have added a template on this note, but unfortunately I don't consider myself knowledgeable enough about this topic to do it myself. N Oneemuss (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Effect on EU Referendum?
As we have the effect on the general elections, shouldn't there be a section on how it affected the EU Referendum, namely the NHS bus? Aquataris (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Expansion of 'Arts and Culture'
Hi, I am a new editor to Misplaced Pages and I'm thinking about austerity and the impact of arts and culture. I haven't found much written about this, so I would greatly appreciate any help and/or collaboration if anybody is interested as I think increasing visibility of this topic is so important, particularly as a result of COVID-19. My edits to the section so far have been rather surface level but I am hoping to expand this to explore the impact of austerity on different and more specific areas of art and culture (creating sub-sections on libraries, museums, theatre etc). Please let me know if you have any information or know of any resources that could help me, of if you would be interested in collaborating!VictoriaManning (talk) 12:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
2.jpg){kind=link}
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
2.jpg){kind=link}
First austerity period
"UK government budget surplus in 2001-2 was followed by many years of budget deficit"
The statement is too broad and the citation given is simply not contemporary nor even appropriate to the timeframe being referred. If the statement is true, it should be rephrased and a citation referring to a massive overspend between 2003-2007 is required. 212.159.100.223 (talk) 05:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- The citation in question, titled "UK government deficit widens unexpectedly in August" is dated from 2018 - and completely out of context to the paragraph timeframe Edrandall (talk) 05:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
'Failed fiscal policy' why?
The first sentence says that this was a failed fiscal policy, but no reference is given, and it is not explained why this assessment has been made. If the stated objectives were to reduce the deficit and begin debt falling then to some extent those objectives were met. The article lacks some neutrality. LaxeyStu (talk) 08:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- The 'failure' of austerity can be reasoned in terms of the fact that despite significant cuts, it did not significantly shrink the size of the state. This is because of low growth from 2008 onwards. It seems that the low growth is separate from the reduced public spending (I.e. simply undoing the cuts would not restore the growth and close the deficit).
- This explanation is in an article in The Times by Paul Johnson, 10 June. LaxeyStu (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes this seems to have been added by an anonymous user very recently, I've removed as I think you're right its not neutral Mostlythunder (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)