Talk:United Kingdom government austerity programme/Archive 1

Removing the quotes

Unless I recive some solid objections I'm going to remove the quotes since at the moment they seem pretty slanted.Genisock2 (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

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. Kahastok talk 19:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You don't understand the source of the bias: it is Keynesian. 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. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You do not have to be a Tory voter to want Wikipedia to meet its core policy standards. 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. Kahastok talk 08:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

That's right, Wikipedia articles cannot be biased, whether that is a Keynesian bias or any other kind of bias. Thom2002 (talk) 12:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Massive bias

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 WP:NPOV 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. Thom2002 (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the best solution is to delete this article and start over--Shrike (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, the only thing that holds me back is that in some ways the article is good - its very detailed, follows all the developments and is carefully sourced. If it wasn't so utterly one-sided it would probably be a featured article by now! PS, as an aside I just noticed the CripesBatey thing (Cripes and Batey were Labour politicians) - somewhat trashing iloveandrea's original sock puppet plan, "just get hold of a new IP address, edit on subjects that I've not so much as touched before, and keep my nose clean. Simple. See you around." Thom2002 (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I look forward to the unbiased version of his article that, despite all the editing effort, still comes to the same conclusion that Austerity is an epic failure.2.98.242.131 (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This article is all about everything being revised down. Anyone care to comment on this: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/naa2/quarterly-national-accounts/q2-2012/stb-quarterly-national-accounts--q2-2012.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.89.95 (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

This article may be biased - I frankly couldn't get past the dense text to tell. But it does seem an awful lot like (if the dates in the article are correct) 3 years in the effects have not been positive for the UK economy. I don't have an interest in the politics of this story, being American, but is this one of those situations where 'things aren't going our way' is being called 'bias'? I'm kind of tempted to go with the 'burn it to the ground' approach, but we should probably wait another decade. Odoketa (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The article is not so much biased as incredibly boring. The dense-packed text with few headings makes it almost impossible to read, though much of its content is, in principle at least, interesting and well-sourced. But yes, it is obviously written by someone who strongly disapproves of goverment policy. --- Asteuartw (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

On closer examination, I think it's a re-do, unless someone has the time and inclination to de-bias it. ---Asteuartw (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Not just massively biased but also hopelessly out of date. Many of the facts have been superceded by newer ones and all talk of a "Double-Dip Recession" has now been shown to be false and should surely be removed. Many sources on this but found this Source from Google: http://www.xperthr.co.uk/blogs/employment-intelligence/2013/06/uk-gdp-data-release-27-june-2013/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.215.233 (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

A critical problem is the sheer emphasis on commentary, rather than the actual subject of the article. As a result, it's a list of opinions, and it's a thin line between reporting opinions and giving your own opinion. A focus on updated reports of facts (what was cut? when? how?) would help the article become something more than a journalistic op-ed. 31.53.207.20 (talk) 03:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Conservative austerity has killed more people in Britain than all the terror attacks in Britain combined. So, who are the real terrorists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by X-Man1000 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Ambiguous title

The current title of this article is ambiguous: this is not the first time a British government has pursued austerity policies. Austerity programmes were also followed, to some extent, in the Depression of the 1930s and in the 40s-50s following the end of the Second World War. A more precise title is needed; something like '2010-present United Kingdom austerity programme'. Does anyone have any better suggestions? (And yes, having skimmed the article, I agree that the content seems pretty biased as well. But let's deal with the easy problems first.) Robofish (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, Robofish. I'd only suggest that most articles with a date range put the dates at the end, eg Monday Night Football results (1970–1989). Cheers Thom2002 (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not wild about dating in article titles, particularly by "present". We already have the Cameron ministry and Premiership of David Cameron so perhaps Austerity under David Cameron or Osborne austerity or Conservative-Liberal Democrat austerity? Actually, given the debate about whether this really is "austerity" (government spending has continued to rise even whilst dept managed spending has reduced), perhaps this should just be called Osborne chancellorship? I'd echo the comments about the general slant of this article, in particular the box-out quotes coming from 2 left-wingers, 2 on the left of centre, and Ed Miliband's ex-girlfriend. (to be fair to Flanders, her reporting is usually pretty neutral). But I'm more worried about the way it concentrates so much on GDP, which is at best a second-order consequence of DEL cuts aimed at reducing the structural deficit in government finances.Le Deluge (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the title should be changed. And the title "austerity" is indeed problematic as a description of what has been the greatest expansion of public debt in peacetime in British history. Politicians and pundits talk about austerity but the actual policy is rather the reverse. Perhaps a better title would be UK Government economic policy since 2010. --Asteuartw (talk) 11:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedias should aim for titles that still make sense in 100 years time, so "since 2010" doesn't really work. That's why it's probably best to tie it to Cameron or Osborne given the precedents. I'm not wild about "austerity" but I can live with it, given that "Politicians and pundits talk about austerity" would be covered by WP:COMMONNAME.Le Deluge (talk) 13:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The easiest solution, and the one that makes most sense, is to rename the article 2010 United Kingdom government austerity programme. I can do this if there are no objections. RGloucester — 📬 03:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)