Polly on numbers

Driven by an ideology that\’s as natural as breathing for David Cameron, Oliver Letwin, George Osborne and their circle, the crisis continues to gift them their unique opportunity: to cut spending permanently, to shrink the state, and to let low-wage/high-pay inequality grow as a functional necessity in their vision of capitalism. No doubt they are disappointed their remedy has failed so far, but more of the same medicine is bound to succeed in the end because the ideology is right. Pragmatism and learning by experience is not for them. Their mindset is closer to obstinate Soviet five-year planners than anything witnessed in a British postwar government.

With great glee Osborne boasted the size of his state would keep dwindling.

Currently the State is 50% or so of GDP. Post WWII average is something around or just under 40% isn\’t it?

So, err, shouldn\’t we be trying to shrink it?

13 thoughts on “Polly on numbers”

  1. A poxy socialist accuses other socialists (for, sans bullshit, that is what they are) of being too socialist?. WTF?.

  2. I despise Toynbee’s suggestion that cutting the state is ideological, but maintaining or increasing its size is just dandy and pragmatic. She also accuses the Chancellor of putting forward a “laissez faire budget”, then complains his mortgage support scheme would inflate house prices. I’m not sure Ms Toynbee is even aware of the contradiction.

  3. Currently the State is 50% or so of GDP. Post WWII average is something around or just under 40% isn

  4. Grrr
    Currently the State is 50% or so of GDP. Post WWII average is something around or just under 40% isnt it?

    So, err, shouldnt we be trying to shrink it?

    Well obviously not if we spent the last few decades trying to grow it.

  5. @The Meissen Bison:

    “Well obviously not if we spent the last few decades trying to grow it.”

    You’re either on the wrong blog, a troll or being deliberately facetious.

    There is a genuine argument to be had about what aspects of the country should be under the control of the state and what shouldn’t.

    The fact that the state directly controls around 50% of the economy is a sign that this has gone too far and needs to be reduced.

    Even in old statist days of the 1960’s and 1970’s they didn’t reach so deep into our trousers.

    For myself, I believe the country would benefit from scraping 90% of existing legislation and 80% of government agencies, staff and regulations.

    The problem is that this is not supported to any degree by any of the parties, so I will just have to sulk in my own little corner.

  6. No doubt they are disappointed their remedy has failed so far, but more of the same medicine is bound to succeed in the end because the ideology is right. Pragmatism and learning by experience is not for them. Their mindset is closer to obstinate Soviet five-year planners than anything witnessed in a British postwar government.

    Isn’t this a bit rich coming from somebody who praised Broon to the heavens?

  7. Only 50%? There is a lot of room for expansion then. Watch the two Ed’s, not sure whether they share the same set of balls, after the next election taking us to 95%!

  8. For myself, I believe the country would benefit from scraping 90% of existing legislation and 80% of government agencies, staff and regulations.

    The problem is that this is not supported to any degree by any of the parties, so I will just have to sulk in my own little corner.

    That makes two of us sulking.

Leave a Reply

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