Cuts? What Cuts?

I find it risible that Gordon Brown (you, know, the mad, unelected cyclops who ruins that country - that one) never says "spending". He says "Cuts" when referring to the Tory budget plans. No. Brown never says "spending", he says "investing in public services". Call me a stuffy old pedant, but to me, that means "spending".

This cutting v spending debate is a farce. What is wrong with trimming down this top heavy government? Don't they know, that we know, spending = taxes? More taxation, on top of the multiple layers of taxation, the eye-watering levels of taxation we enjoy.

We are over governed and over taxed, but I must let Matthew Parris have the last word, from his column in Today's Times:

Why does Australia - not a country one thinks of as repressive, brutal or fascist - manage with a proportionally much smaller public sector?

As the Labour Party implodes, Conservatives should start getting back on to the front foot on the role of the State. It may not only be a matter of “admitting” that governments will “have to” cut spending to reduce debt. It may be time, not just to defend the economic necessity of cheaper government in straitened times, but to assert the moral superiority of smaller government at all times.

Tonight Matthew, I will be drinking to you.


Anonymous said...

Should it not be " Cuts what cuts "
Or is it a cut in cuts to cus ?

Wrinkled Weasel said...

thank you anon. Have stealth edited the stupid mistake.