Introduction

This final chapter builds on the preceding discussion of the institutional and personal remnants of budgetary restraint, with the aim of considering austerity's ongoing importance in shaping society and (re)defining present and future policy. In particular, it details how the temporality of austerity reshapes ideas, expectations and the realm of possibilities for action. Notably, the Conservative Party's pre-financial crisis pledge to maintain spending parity with the then Labour government – a pledge that suggested an awareness of the need to balance neoliberal ideals with electoral pressures – was disregarded in the wake of the economic downturn, which provided a rationale for them to prioritize fiscal prudence upon assuming power. The austerity measures that followed, including reforms to public services, taxation and social security, were framed as necessary to cope with the negative outcomes of fluctuating economic conditions, including the costs associated with bailing out strategically important financial institutions (Pautz, 2018). Given this movement – and knowledge of the harmful consequences of the cuts and reforms which ensued that I have outlined in the preceding chapters of this book – it is pressing to consider the (continued) recourse to austerity measures by government officials, and more specifically why such measures have not proved ‘electorally dangerous’ (Lee et al, 2020: 165). The aim of this chapter then is to spotlight how important the construal of a policy problem is, or to put this differently, how the construction of austerity as a fiscal response to the crisis – a crisis that would pass should spending cuts and tax increases be implemented – serves to dampen attention to its implications for life courses and life chances beyond the defined period of retrenchment, which was initially envisioned to be around ten years (2010– 2019).

Interestingly, a recent Danish study describes how governments cutting back on welfare services or benefits can avoid electoral punishment by communicating any retrenchment and framing it to their own benefit (Elmelund-Præstekær et al, 2015; see Whiteley et al [2014] for a comparative UK perspective). This might involve claims about economic responsibility that imply reform is necessary or the questioning of the eligibility or ‘deservingness’ of those receiving the services or benefits being cut so that reductions in financial support and access to state provisions are perceived as fair, just or efficient (Whiteley et al, 2014).