Well, yes Polly, this is obvious

Secondly, an £83bn cut in spending accelerates both poverty and inequality. There is no escape for the obvious reason that most spending is on those who need it most.


Mike Brewer of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, a cautious outfit, says it is bound to hit the poorest most: \”It would be astounding if cutting a quarter of public spending were not regressive.\” He can say it with certainty even before we know where next week\’s cuts fall hardest.

For if most of the spending is on the poor then cutting the spending will obviously hit the poor.

This isn\’t exactly a revelation.

he is beguiled by tokenism while ignoring unavoidable iron laws: cuts will fall unfairly.

But that doesn\’t follow. For you\’ve leapt from obvious fact to a partisan interpretation of the word \”fairly\”.

Let us conduct a small thought experiment. It is an absolute part, a bedrock of belief, for Polly that those who get more should pay more. Those who get more money out of the economy\’s current set up should pay more in tax for example.

If we were to be consistent then, having decided that the current structure of the economy is unsustainable (yes, having made that determination, this is not the place to be discussing whether) then we really shouldn\’t be all that surprised that those who get the most out of the current structure of redistribution will lose the most as that redistribution changes.

This also looks very odd to me:

It will take a while longer for the first victim of a drunk driver to find that even for paralysis of a bread-winner maximum damages will now be capped at £25,000, to the delight of the insurance industry.

I really and absolutely do not believe that anyone has tried to cap damages in that manner.

Punitive damages, possibly, but not economic damages. Absolutely no way can I believe that.

Anyone know where Polly got that from?

4 thoughts on “Well, yes Polly, this is obvious”

  1. I left this comment on her piece. It may not survive moderation:

    even for paralysis of a bread-winner maximum damages will now be capped at £25,000

    The report says nothing of the sort. It says that the current £10,000 limit for “small claims” procedures to be used should be raised to £25,000. I urge readers to download the original report and read it without distortion.


    For those with limited time, look to page 24.

    Polly has not understood what she has read and has totally misrepresented her misunderstandings to the public. Whether from a fundamental lack of intellectual ability or the result of rushed and sloppy work distorted through her political prism, her work cannot be trusted. That the Guardian allows her to write this rubbish without any serious editorial control reflects on the reliability of the newspaper itself.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *