[tjradcliffe]

I've seen this claim as well, but the data don't seem to support it. UK spending for all levels of government 2008-2014 in constant (2005) pounds (data from: http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/download_multi_year_2008_2...):

    Year	GDP	Pop	Spending £ bln 2005
    2008	MW gdp	61.548	582.23	
    2009	MW gdp	61.904	623.50	
    2010	1564.9	62.262	697.65	
    2011	1600.2	62.649	699.89	
    2012	1621.6	63.067	692.43	
    2013	1632	63.488	661.32	
    2014	1665.6	63.912	525.22	

There's a huge drop 2013-2014, but before that the spend-up was pretty considerable, and economic growth has been solid since the start of 2013, so if this be "austerity", make the most of it!

EDIT: the drop in 2014 is due to local government not being added in. If I look at just "Central Government" from the same source:

    2008	MW gdp	61.548	427.07	
    2009	MW gdp	61.904	458.29	
    2010	1564.9	62.262	516.99	
    2011	1600.2	62.649	517.16	
    2012	1621.6	63.067	522.42	
    2013	1632	63.488	496.97	
    2014	1665.6	63.912	525.22

Again, hard to claim much "austerity" in these data.

[akhatri_aus]

Austerity can't be looked at only from the spending point of view, especially since it carries with it an element of affordability. Its also about looking at taxation receipts.

On overall the deficit between the two has been decreasing which is where the 'austerity' terminology is used. The comparison comes in handy where alot of Europe has been going through this (in spite of decreasing or low economic growth) whereas the US increased its deficits too.

What I mean to say is austerity is tied more to the affordability as opposed to the absolute dollar amounts.

Deficits

Year Amount 2009 156.3 2010 148.6 2011 120.6 2012 99.5