r/worldnews Oct 06 '22

Over 330,000 excess deaths in Great Britain linked to austerity, finds study

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/oct/05/over-330000-excess-deaths-in-great-britain-linked-to-austerity-finds-study
1.2k Upvotes

50

u/No_Month_9746 Oct 06 '22

TIL what austerity means

35

u/liegesmash Oct 07 '22

The elites do love themselves some eugenics

85

u/autotldr BOT Oct 06 '22

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 80%. (I'm a bot)


More than 330,000 excess deaths in Great Britain in recent years can be attributed to spending cuts to public services and benefits introduced by a UK government pursuing austerity policies, according to an academic study.

Co-author Ruth Dundas, professor of social epidemiology at the University of Glasgow, said: "This study shows that in the UK a great many more deaths are likely to have been caused by UK government economic policy than by the Covid-19 pandemic."

In Scotland, premature deaths in the fifth most deprived areas increased by 6% to 7% among men and women, after previous decreases of 10% to 20%. Previous studies have linked austerity spending policies in health and social care to excess deaths in England, as well as a slowdown in life expectancy among the most deprived individuals.


Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Death#1 government#2 study#3 austerity#4 among#5

77

u/Intruder313 Oct 06 '22

Exactly how the Torids want it

35

u/varro-reatinus Oct 06 '22

'That's not a bug, that's a feature!'

-- Liz Truss, probably

20

u/Archivist_of_Lewds Oct 06 '22

"Have we tried killing the poor?"well?

171

u/peter-doubt Oct 06 '22

I'd bet half of them voted for Tories

127

u/empmccoy Oct 06 '22

At least half.

Most are vulnerable pensioners id say voting against their own best interest persuaded by a pernicious media who would rather them fear foreigners than see the issues caused by the super rich.

50

u/bobtheturd Oct 06 '22

Hey sounds just like the US

47

u/empmccoy Oct 06 '22

It's almost like the same media companies are owned or at minimum heavily influenced by the same few people.

Classic, 'this is extremely dangeorous to our democracy' video: https://youtu.be/ZggCipbiHwE

5

u/peter-doubt Oct 07 '22

Media owners and their servile editors get to set the trend . The honest journalists are usually the underpaid 20- somethings. And nobody over 40 listens to them.

22

u/ThermalFlask Oct 06 '22

More than half. Chances are the vulnerable groups more likely to die from austerity are old folks. The same old folks that vote for the conservative parties that fuck them over

8

u/GammaGoose85 Oct 07 '22

Is this what they meant by cutting the homeless in half a couple years ago?

5

u/DeuceBane Oct 06 '22

I’m not poor, I’m dead

2

u/ohnoitsthebigcheese Oct 07 '22

The ultimate (and only) level-up for any poor person.

2

u/Ralliare Oct 07 '22

That's a very... conservative estimate.

I'll see myself out

4

u/StechTocks Oct 07 '22

Absolutely shameful for a supposed 'rich' country. Bloody Tories!

114

u/Try040221 Oct 06 '22

Compare to French, common people of England seems very servile.

Even now, the majority of lands are held by royals and noble family.

Why is that?

42

u/Dolemite-is-My-Name Oct 06 '22 edited Oct 07 '22

An interesting historical note, though I have no idea how relevant it is to today, but Britain did manage to avoid the revolutions sweeping Europe in the 1800s, in particular 1848, thanks to a trickling down of rights, largely being the reason there never was a French Revolution style event in Britain*.

Stuff like the Reform Act in 1832 and the repeal of the corn laws meant we never had to pick up pitchforks and begin guillotining. To put that point in perspective, the PM who repealed the corn laws was Robert Peel who is a member of the same political party as the current Prime Minister.

I would argue that cultural legacy is a part of the reason, its just not as prevalent in our history

EDIT:*never a violent revolution is what I mean here

25

u/2xw Oct 06 '22

I think you're misrepresenting Peel here - he repealed the corn laws by rebelling against the Tories and using Whig and Radical support, and they forced him to resign as a consequence. He brought in many laws and reforms that were good for working people throughout his life contrary to his parties natural instincts, alongside the more liberal version of modern policing we have in Britain. I think he was one of Britain's greatest prime ministers and probably the last Tory PM other than Churchill that had the countries best interests at heart.

Obviously that's aside from your major point, which I agree with.

8

u/Dolemite-is-My-Name Oct 06 '22

No its a good bit of context you've added there, I was debating adding something similar in but then I looked back and realised the comment was already like 8 paragraphs long and ended up scrapping a ton of it.

1

u/Dco777 Oct 24 '22

LBJ (In the USA) used Republicans (He was a Democrat.) to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Bill.

Two members of his own party voted in the Senate for it, and a tiny percentage (I forget how many now.) in the House.

Things change. In America there is a saying; "Only Nixon could go to China".

Nixon was one of the staunchest anti-communists. Yet he opened relations with a communist country for the first time.

He also signed the SALT nuclear arms treaty with the USSR back then too. I'm sure many never saw that as possible.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 24 '22

[deleted]

1

u/Dco777 Oct 24 '22

Our Founders found the "Vote of No Confidence" and tossing out who was in office undesirable over passing unpopularity or a single issue.

So Presidents are set term, period. Though LBJ chose not to run again. They are term limited too.

There's a saying "A prophet is never accepted in their home country" or some such, so I guess Peel was ahead of his time and unaccepted by his people.

Happened many times in world history.

4

u/pissalisa Oct 06 '22

This came in a documentary series about WW1:

They kept making a point about how Great Britain was the only Empire left after it with relatively unchanged ‘structures’ (part from like Scandinavian countries not part of the conflict, also keeping their monarchies) while the rest of Europes great powers, reconstructed from the ground after it.

Could this be a contributing factor too?

8

u/FannyFiasco Oct 06 '22

The big picture stuff stayed the same but a lot of social reforms were passed after WW1. Another consequence was so many aristocratic families being wiped out, since officers were drawn from their class and were more likely to die than the typical soldier.

4

u/nagrom7 Oct 07 '22

England did have essentially violent revolutions, they just happened before 'revolutions' were a popular thing. Originally, they were mostly revolts by the nobility against the monarch to weaken the monarchs power, forcing them to agree to things like Magna Carta and the establishment of parliament. Then the English Civil War, which was about a century before the first French Revolution, established the precedent of popular sovereignty, and that Parliament is the true power in the country. But otherwise yeah, by the time the mass waves of revolutions spread through Europe in the 1800s, they weren't really necessary in the UK because they already had a very restricted constitutional monarchy, and even after the revolutions were still more democratic than a lot of the European countries that had gone through revolutions.

1

u/Radix2309 Oct 07 '22

I am pretty sure there were a few worker revolts at that period.

3

u/Dolemite-is-My-Name Oct 07 '22

When is there not? But there wasn't any revolutions. The government ticked on by. Do you know what the was happening in Britain while France had its revolution? Chartism, a peaceful march to deliver a petition that ended up being cancelled.

"The meeting was peaceful and finished without incident".

If we're talking about French Revolution level event then the English did get to take part in one, but it was later and relatively peaceful. William of Orange and the (misleadingly named) 'Glorious Revolution' was glorious because James VII/II fled and Parliament (skipping over some stuff people should look up) was willing to accept him as King. It wasn't from some huge popular homegrown Protestant/Dutch sympathising movement attacking Parliament, though he certainly had some level of domestic support.

Why no violence* in the English compared to French version? It was a relatively peaceful transition of a Catholic monarchy to a Protestant one.

(*yeah there was obviously still some violence but this was the late 1800s I'm sure there was violence most breakfast's. Really though there was less violence than in other European countries like Italy, Hungary or France during 1848. There was workers revolts in Britain but there was never a workers revolution.)

-15

u/Tommass65 Oct 06 '22

Cultural history aspect you mentioned should be taken with a grain of salt especially looking at world stage; American democrat party with their heritage of going against human rights movement, affiliation with kkk, civil war and which side they chosen and institutional discrimination all throughout their history, socialist party in Germany after country’s story with national socialism, communist parties all over Europe and their past communist party backgrounds eg; Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary and so on and know there’s no ideology responsible for more death than communism, there’s so so many examples in that field so should be handled with care. Suggesting what you suggested about the tories putting in context and being applied all over the world could raise quite a lot of questions.

11

u/BlackJesus1001 Oct 06 '22

Lol I see you trying to slip in that "socialism = Nazism" bullshit.

-10

u/Tommass65 Oct 06 '22

Do you know what Nazi stands for? Go figure.

8

u/BlackJesus1001 Oct 06 '22

Do you know what DPRK stands for? Go figure.

Fuck off with your smooth brain, far right talking points.

4

u/Dolemite-is-My-Name Oct 06 '22

Not sure where you got that from, it was a question and answer specific to England so yeah i agree dont apply to the world

-6

u/Tommass65 Oct 06 '22

I reflected on the cultural legacy part of your comment which I believe is a nonsense given that no one is responsible for the wrong doing of their predecessors.

3

u/Dolemite-is-My-Name Oct 06 '22

Yeah again not sure where you're getting that idea from, who said people today are responsible for the actions of their predecessors?

0

u/Tommass65 Oct 06 '22

“I would argue that cultural legacy is part of the reason…” no it’s not part of the reason the new politicians are not responsible for long dead politicians action.

3

u/Dolemite-is-My-Name Oct 06 '22

What do you think cultural legacy means? I'm not saying you don't know, I'm more of wanting to know what you mean when you're using that phrase because the definition I'm familiar with doesn't sound like its the same as yours

1

u/Tommass65 Oct 06 '22

Cultural legacy can be interpreted as an inheritance of cultural traits (political in this instance) that influence our success or failure, a form of political heritage in the way you mentioned, implying that a former politician who’s since long passed away formed a cultural legacy that still shaping todays torie policy and to imply that is wrong on so many levels as expressed before.

2

u/Dolemite-is-My-Name Oct 06 '22

Right ah that might be where you're going wrong here, I never said or even really implied its affecting politicians today merely pointed out that unlike other European nations we didnt revolt against our ruling class which is why the same party is still in a position of power. Of course *Tory policy has changed it was nearly 200 years ago.

The context of we're discussing here is why the English people dont rise up not the politicians. It's why I never mentioned current Tory policy. I think you've took a comment and ran off the rails a bit bud

→ More replies

101

u/DisgruntledBadger Oct 06 '22

I don't know any country that has people that protest/riot as good as the French.

23

u/MinorThreat89 Oct 06 '22

One of my favourite things about the French.

6

u/Kataly5t Oct 06 '22

Then you should see what the Dutch can do with tractors ;)

5

u/keyboard-sexual Oct 06 '22

Everybody knows British men make the most submissive and breedable femboys

3

u/RoraRaven Oct 06 '22

Pyrocynical

1

u/Ralliare Oct 07 '22

I can never find a good pair of thigh-highs in this fucking country.

1

u/keyboard-sexual Oct 07 '22

Give up and just go to sockdreams 😅

-10

u/lmaydev Oct 06 '22

That literally isn't true. Where are you getting that from?

36

u/jmustelidae Oct 06 '22

[https://abcfinance.co.uk/blog/who-owns-the-uk/] (Royalty & nobility own 3% of UK area)

[https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/apr/17/who-owns-england-thousand-secret-landowners-author] (Half of England is owned by less than 1% of the population)

An exaggeration then, but those numbers are still disgusting.

2

u/External-Platform-18 Oct 06 '22

An exaggeration then,

Describing 3% as more than 50% is an exaggeration in the same way doing 500mph is drifting over the limit in a 30 zone.

10

u/Try040221 Oct 06 '22

What exaggeration?

Half of England is owned by less than 1% of its population, according to new data shared with the Guardian that seeks to penetrate the secrecy that has traditionally surrounded land ownership.

The findings, described as “astonishingly unequal”, suggest that about 25,000 landowners – typically members of the aristocracy and corporations – have control of half of the country.

-2

u/External-Platform-18 Oct 06 '22 edited Oct 06 '22

Even now, the majority of lands are held by royals and noble family.

Royalty and nobility actually own 3% of land.

The 1% is completely irrelevant to this point. Most of the 1% are not royalty or nobility.

But I suppose you have a point, in that claiming royalty and nobility own more than 50% of land when they actually own 3% is closer to an outright lie than an exaggeration.

-2

u/Blamore Oct 06 '22

its literally 3%

1

u/Omnipotent48 Oct 06 '22

The English 1% are just Nuevo Riche nobility rather than old money nobility. More than half of England being owned by the 1% is effectively a majority of the country being owned by a higher social class, i.e. Nobility.

3

u/Blamore Oct 06 '22

you cant just rename "rich people" to "nobility"

0

u/Omnipotent48 Oct 06 '22 edited Oct 06 '22

What functional difference does that mean to you, a likely member of the proletariat/workingclass/peasntry?

2

u/External-Platform-18 Oct 07 '22

Functionally to me it might as well be owned by Uganda, but claiming that would still by lying.

A lie doesn’t become true just because it’s practical implications are very similar to the truth. On a functional level, during my day to day life, the world might as well be flat, but I wouldn’t defend anyone that said it.

5

u/Blamore Oct 06 '22

thr insinuation is that nobility and royalty owns much of the country.

in reality, rich people own most of stuff in every country.

-2

u/Omnipotent48 Oct 06 '22

Yes. They do. And I'm telling you that there's little functional difference between the nuevo riche and the old money. They're both nobility, they just style themselves differently.

7

u/External-Platform-18 Oct 06 '22

They made it up, but you get downvotes because UK bad so any claim that makes the UK look more bad must be true.

-1

u/DirkDiggyBong Oct 06 '22

We're pretty chill and value different things, I guess.

15

u/dontsheeple Oct 07 '22

The Nazis called them "useless eaters" and exterminated them. It was labeled Genocide then but rebranded as "austerity" now.

-13

u/SisKlnM Oct 07 '22

Lol, k

3

u/lakshmananlm Oct 07 '22

Should we Truss this figure?

3

u/A_man_on_a_boat Oct 07 '22

A right wing domestic genocide.

54

u/kissmyshiny_metalass Oct 06 '22

Right wing politicians are murderers.

20

u/theforkofjustice Oct 06 '22

Austerity is literally an act of genocide.

21

u/kissmyshiny_metalass Oct 06 '22

That's why fascists love austerity so much.

2

u/QubitQuanta Oct 07 '22

But please divert your attention to other countries like China, and forget about the shti we do at home.

9

u/Drach88 Oct 06 '22

Weren't they supposed to be saving billions on their car insurance by switching to Brexit?

5

u/MartinSchou Oct 06 '22

You save just around 100% on your car insurance if you cannot afford to own a car. It's a really neat trick.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 07 '22

Maybe, pound for pound, Putin’s GRU operation to promote Brexit and permanently damage Britain was as good a return on investment as Bin Laden’s plot goading the US to spend trillions on unnecessary wars.

15

u/Allanon124 Oct 06 '22

I would love to see the “cause of death” data.

-23

u/RobotSpaceBear Oct 06 '22

I'm having a hard time believing austerity kills about three times the war in Ukraine killed as far.

17

u/Wrackandruin Oct 06 '22

Over 10 year period, that is 30k more per year in an aging pop of 67m

6

u/micro102 Oct 06 '22

STOP! You are confusing them with reading and basic math!

7

u/totallyclips Oct 06 '22
  • all the people who didn't need to die of covid, and you have a massacre, put your life in our hands, and die, should their motto

4

u/dawko29 Oct 06 '22

I actually had to Google that word cause I'm not English.

9

u/Malkintent Oct 07 '22

It's a perfectly cromulent word.

7

u/dawko29 Oct 07 '22

I'm entering a new age here, getting downvote for not knowing what austerity means....but it wasn't a problem when I was pouring a fucking pint to those cunts(meaning, I "I stole their job")

5

u/russ_nightlife Oct 07 '22

I don't know why your original comment got downvoted, but I can't stop laughing at this comment.

2

u/Buzumab Oct 07 '22 edited Oct 07 '22

Bill Clinton governed under the principles of austerity in the United States. France has favored austerity in recent decades, including currently under Macron. And many countries in Europe and some of South America have had austerity governments/heads of state for various periods of time.

It's really only in recent years that Third Way parties & practices have really begun losing ground to populist and more social/progressive democrat movements. Austerity was very influential for a fair couple of decades, with more half of the countries in the West having at least one austerity government take power during a roughly two-decade period.

Edit: to clarify my own position, I strongly oppose austere domestic economic policy.

That's actually why I wanted to emphasize its significance; from a moderate center-left position, I believe that austerity governance is one of the greatest failures of contemporary centrism. It has amounted to a massive concession by representatives of the public to private interests, and is one of the most directly consequential policies of our time for the majority of the populations of some of the countries I've named, but it's uncommon that someone is even familiar with the term.

5

u/[deleted] Oct 07 '22

Clinton benefitted from a relatively short-lived economic “peace dividend” following the collapse of the Soviet empire. He destroyed the Democratic Party by embracing neo-liberal doctrine as promoted by his Treasury Secretary, Richard Rubin, a veteran of Goldman Sachs. I was reading in the NYRB the other day that in the 1996 election, counties with a majority of whites w/o a college education were evenly divided between the two parties but by 2016 it was over 600 for Trump versus two for Hillary Clinton. Working people abandoned the Democratic party due to the austerity snake oil. Ironically, we don’t see austerity practiced by Republicans as far as corporations or the military goes.

3

u/Buzumab Oct 07 '22

Austerity has been disastrous for the working class. You can't even call it only an abandonment; it was a sacrifice of entire sectors of labor and social protections/services in exchange for a highly financialized service economy that operates almost solely in favor of the managerial class.

From wages to healthcare services, nearly every economic or social contribution these governments offer to their working class has stagnated or declined massively under austerity.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 07 '22

Just because many states did it does not make it right. It generally prolongs recessions and depressions and the brunt of the suffering is disproportionately borne by those who benefit the least after a recovery.

3

u/Buzumab Oct 07 '22

I strongly oppose austere domestic economic policy, so we're in agreement.

That's actually why I wanted to emphasize its significance; from a moderate center-left position, I believe that austerity governance is one of the greatest failures of contemporary centrism. It has amounted to a massive concession by representatives of the public to private interests, and is one of the most directly consequential policies of our time for the majority of the populations of some of the countries I've named, but it's uncommon that someone is even familiar with the term.

I do appreciate you making this point, though. I'll append my original comment to include my perspective.

3

u/buddwizard Oct 06 '22

Election now

6

u/ThermalFlask Oct 06 '22

So the brits can vote the same party back in with an even bigger majority this time? Lol

1

u/Atralis Oct 07 '22

I get that there may be some truth behind the headline but reading the article it seems like fluff to me. How do you even measure an "excess death from austerity"? The article doesn't say.

-43

u/[deleted] Oct 06 '22 edited 17d ago

[deleted]

14

u/MartinSchou Oct 06 '22

Some people who were confident enough to submit their paper to the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health for publication, and the paper's reasoning was sound enough to survive peer review. It's right there in the article.

If you're so certain that the science, statistics and reasoning behind the paper is bogus, you should do your own peer review of the paper and force the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health to retract the paper.

5

u/PfizerGuyzer Oct 06 '22

Keep voting for Truss xD

26

u/Del_3030 Oct 06 '22

Who writes this crap?

Are you suggesting income is actually not correlated with life expectancy?

-19

u/Important-Home7296 Oct 06 '22

Literally COVID cover up

2

u/Lukesomnia Oct 07 '22

“The authors of the study suggest additional deaths between 2012 and 2019 – prior to the Covid pandemic – reflect an increase in people dying prematurely after experiencing reduced income, ill-health, poor nutrition and housing, and social isolation.

Previously improving mortality trends started to change for the worse after austerity policies introduced in 2010 when tens of billions of pounds began to be cut from public spending by the Tory-led coalition government, the study said.”

1

u/Important-Home7296 Oct 07 '22

Dying from reduced income. Lmfao

-16

u/dietMoon Oct 06 '22

Maybe someone can help me understand what they would like:

Say you keep high spending and high benefits. Your debt will go up and either you pay it back one day with austerity or you don't. Well, you decided austerity is bad so the only solution is to print more government bonds/currency and keep the debt going up, while injecting money into the economy.

With all this extra money going around, your currency is devalued, groceries become more expensive, housing prices become more expensive, imports are more expensive.

Aren't people going to be angry when these get more expensive?

I'm seeing this play out in the US and, yes people are angry things are more expensive. However in the US, neither of the two major political parties believe in austerity. We just go the inflation route.

16

u/Kwintty7 Oct 06 '22

Say you keep high spending and high benefits.

Your opening supposition is false, so your argument from then on is fatally flawed.

8

u/2xw Oct 06 '22

What you're missing is that the spending generates growth, in the same way that investing in a business makes it better. Healthcare spending increases productivity. So does roads and bridges and trains. Businesses thrive when they can move stuff around. Well funded police keeps the costs of crime low.

The idea should be that good public services are funded by high corporate taxes. Large businesses do not pay their way here - they benefit from good roads, low crime and healthy, educated employees but don't pay for it.

This is exactly the same as in the US. The conservative idea of low corporate taxes where business benefits from the state but doesn't pay for it is meant to encourage wealth to trickle down - but one of our issues is that it doesn't anymore - it trickles off to Panama.

Of course, there is a balance to be had in this of state spending versus the benefits and what it can afford. But we need to have learned the lesson here that if you don't pay for health, education, police, then you get massively increased costs to your economy.

Edit: a good example of put nothing in get nothing our is healthcare in the US. The burden of healthcare falls on individuals, charities but most of all (for most middle earners) the employers. But the US spends double on healthcare per capita than the UK for pretty similar health outcomes, all because businesses don't want to pay higher taxes - and then pay for healthcare themselves. It's cutting off your nose to spite your face.

4

u/MartinSchou Oct 06 '22

Edit: a good example of put nothing in get nothing our is healthcare in the US. The burden of healthcare falls on individuals, charities but most of all (for most middle earners) the employers. But the US spends double on healthcare per capita than the UK for pretty similar health outcomes, all because businesses don't want to pay higher taxes - and then pay for healthcare themselves. It's cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I think that for US employers, the biggest advantage to paying for healthcare insurance for your employees, is that your employees are incentivised to NOT lose their jobs, which means they'll take a LOT more shit from their employer than if healthcare was nationalized.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 07 '22

[deleted]

1

u/MartinSchou Oct 07 '22

Maybe for the very poor, but for the vast majority of the middle class they could just get another job.

What middle class?

Over 60% of Americans Are Living Paycheck to Paycheck.

If you're living paycheck-to-paycheck, you cannot afford to go a single day without pay. And if you switch employer, there's a good chance that you'll end up without healthcare coverage for a while too.

2

u/ThroawayyHCA Oct 07 '22

Our debt is already going up. After 6 years of austerity the Tories hadnt even halved the DEFICIT. We are nowhere near even beginning to pay off debt, we are borrowing more and more and there is nothing left to cut.

A national economy doesn't work like a household budget. Cutting public services and infrastructure and making people poor reduces growth, reduces income and increases costs down the line.

Austerity is like quitting your job to save money on commuting.