Polly and hyperbole

The only reason Osborne is putting his foot on the accelerator is because he wants to and because he can. Who’s going to stop him now? This is a dash to shrink the state, squeeze everything, contract out what can’t be cut and return, as his own Office for Budget Responsibility said, to a prewar, pre-welfare state, bare-bones government.

The cuts would return us to 35% of so of GDP flowing through government. About what we had in 1999 and 2000, under Gordon Brown. Pre-WWII would be more like 25% of GDP (before rearmament at least).

Polly’s relationship with facts is somewhat tenuous, yes?

15 comments on “Polly and hyperbole

  1. Tim

    Your are a right-wing reactionary. You put truth before what the people need.

    You’ll be up against a wall when the lefties get back in (if you are not six feet under already when that finally comes round, he he!)

  2. Bbb: Polly is 68. If she had not consistently demonstrated folly in her youth, the diagnosis of dementia would be easy.

  3. Could anyone who can be bothered trawling through the figures tell me which type of government cuts these are, anyway? Is it cuts, i.e.:

    Current budget = x
    Future budget = x – y

    or “cuts”, i.e.:

    Current budget = x
    Previously projected future budget = x + y
    New future budget = x + y – z , where z < y

    ?

    The latter is the normal way for politicians to view money, and I can't help but notice that state spending keeps increasing under "austerity".

  4. @Sq2… It’s simply the redefinition of English into “Politicspeak” where “cut” == “reduced increase”.

  5. Pogo,

    Yes, I know. But there still can, in theory, be actual cuts. So I’m wondering which kind we are currently facing. And I know there are people round these ‘ere parts who actually go through the relevant reports.

  6. The Guardian’s sales figures are now south of 175,000 and dropping.

    Guess there’s a limited audience for rich ponces running around screaming “the sky is falling, the sky is falling”

  7. Well, S2, ‘cuts’ in the usual sense are more accurately d² budget/d t² < 0 for some period of time i.e. d budget/d t is still positive post-‘cut’, just a bit smaller than before.

    Since I’m an absolutist who doesn’t believe that the entire UK Civil Service needs much more manpower than that currently employed by, say, Waverley Borough Council and that almost all benefits should cease, I reckon 8–10% of GDP should be ample.

  8. “to a prewar, pre-welfare state, bare-bones government”
    Goodness, if only she was correct! 🙂

  9. The only reason Osborne is putting his foot on the accelerator is because he wants to and because he can.

    Well, yes Polly. Just as your side tried to do when it was in power. Maybe now you might understand what ‘unlimited government power to help people’ actually means.

    It means that sometimes the big meanies get ahold of the reins.

  10. “return us to 35% of so of GDP”

    They won’t get it down to 35% – Maggie failed and these lot are not fit to wash her undies.

  11. @johnnydub

    “The Guardian’s sales figures are now south of 175,000 and dropping.”

    Ah no. They were projected to have fallen to 150,000, so this in fact represents a triumphant increase of 25,000 copies sold.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.