Unfortunately, we think too narrowly about austerity policies. When we think of, for example, only cutting Winter Fuel Payments, we provide a get-out clause and cover for politicians. Digging deeper into the austerity paradigm unveils the stickiness of austerity policies.

How easily we forget the damage done by austerity policies. Over 300,000 excess deaths were related to UK Government austerity policies between 2012 and 2019, with the poorest areas of the UK hardest hit, according to a study by the University of Glasgow. “10 million missing men disappeared in the early 1990s”, was how authors Stuckler and Basu summed up the effects of austerity in the former Soviet Union in their book, The Body Economic: Why Austerity Kills.

Austerity is a killer, but much of it is done out of sight of the mainstream political and economic narrative. Like much of the discussion of our economy, there is an "Overton Window" where the mainstream or the establishment directs the public discourse to focus on specific areas. Benefit cuts sit within that window. But all the other parts of the austerity agenda are hidden away. So, too, is the overall policy paradigm that ensures austerity politics.

In summary, we are "allowed" to discuss only some of the policies, and we cannot look at the framework from which they emanate.

If you have read many of these newsletters, you will know that we go where others dare to tread.

Austerity with a capital A

Cutting benefits is the noisy, look over there, element of austerity. This is the part that most commentators and opposition politicians focus on. For example, John Swinney’s post-conference video mentioned the two-child cap and cutting Winter Fuel Payments. Calling these policies “Austerity with a capital A” plays within the mainstream discussion, and I would hazard a guess, also the understanding of austerity within the Scottish government.

John Swinney (Image: PA)

The austerity narrative is controlled by limiting the scope of the discussion and the lack of understanding. This is not to downplay the part that comes to light; reducing direct welfare payments to society's most vulnerable has a huge human cost. But the Overton Window is fixed over this one element of austerity.

This ensures that we discuss things like "Should we means-test benefits?", "How much should a benefits cap be?", and "Why do people need these benefits anyway? Shouldn’t they just get a job?" It is easy to shift the debate and thereby shift the focus of the entire austerity project.

At this point, you have to question why "the left" allows this narrative to be forced upon them. Is it because they don’t really seek the change they say they do? Or is it because they want to be heard, and playing along is the only way to do it?

Whatever the answer, commentators and politicians too easily slip into a predefined role in interviews. Party political messages are often shallow. Those ready to attack austerity find that the conditions and location of the battle are already settled.

Unfortunately, austerity is much more complicated than welfare cuts.

This post is a call for those commentators and politicians who consider themselves part of the "anti-austerity alliance" to take some time to understand austerity properly. And then start to drive the narrative.

READ MORE: Shona Robison announces £500 million of Scottish Government cuts

Austerity takes three forms. Fiscal retraction reduces government spending on welfare, especially unemployment benefits and pensions, and targets cutbacks in health, education, and social care. That much we know is the bit that sits within the mainstream discourse. Industrial retraction reduces spending on infrastructure projects. Monetary austerity maintains high interest rates. These last two elements are rarely mentioned.

Together, they shrink the amount of money spent on a section of society while reducing that same section's consumption. The most vulnerable in our society are crushed from all sides.

Please ask yourself if you have ever heard this more expansive explanation of austerity from anyone in or near "the mainstream". And then maybe wonder why.

Also missing from any discussions is the policy framework adopted by every mainstream political party in the UK. Using the Hayden Policy Paradigm, I created a schematic diagram of the Austerity Paradigm.

When you understand the framework that gives birth to policies, you can see that austerity is baked into the UK policy framework. It becomes the default. The instruction manual says: "Here is how you assemble austerity."

How to create a more powerful message

Progressive commentators and politicians would gain much more traction if they addressed the full scope of austerity. It goes way beyond cutting benefits. It is structural. It is how the system is designed. Point that out, and your message will start to have more impact.

“There are three forms of austerity: fiscal, industrial, and monetary. They reinforce each other to reduce workers' consumption and power while solidifying the wealth and power of the wealthiest. This is the austerity playbook, which is more than a century old. We must call out cuts to welfare, but we must also talk about the industrial and infrastructural malice in the UK and how welfare for the wealthy, in the form of high interest rates, especially on government debt, is never questioned and seems untouchable.”

Join us LIVE on Thursday at 8pm as we delve into the austerity paradigm.