Write to letters@thetimes.co.ukSir, Daniel Finkelstein’s article highlights an interesting political dynamic: Rachel Reeves is making cuts to benefits but avoiding the term “austerity”, even as some liken her policies to those of George Osborne (“Austerity Reeves is at one with Osborne”, comment, Apr 2). Perhaps part of the issue is that the meaning of austerity has shifted. The word once evoked the simplicity and self-denial of figures like John the Baptist, whose austere lifestyle was defined by necessity rather than policy. Today it is a term of political contention, associated not with personal discipline but with government-imposed hardship. Reeves’s reluctance to use it suggests that, while fiscal restraint remains in practice, its branding is as important as its execution.

Source: The Times April 03, 2025 12:08 UTC