>Outlining the £81bn cuts package, Mr Osborne vowed to restore “sanity to our public finances and stability to our economy”.
I’m not at all a fan of the welfare reforms, but they very much are not at the same level of the cuts imposed by the tories. I wonder where the disconnect is, perhaps to do with the reporting, or is just with the passage of time and people are affected now so that’s what they’re considering?
So the takeaway here is that labour are at least using a bit of spit as lube when they fuck the sick, the poor and the disabled. How lucky for them, getting the shaft so labour’s donors don’t have to be asked to put their hands in their own pockets.
Keep in mind that YouGov was started by and owned by a Tory.
In other news people are pretty damn stupid/
This is the same thick as shit public that think benefits fraud is off the scale – when tax evasion by millionaires costs more.
But they aren’t higher are they?
It’s cuts on top of those cuts when people were probably hoping it would be the end of austerity or signal a change in policy.
I have no doubts that the Tories would still be worse, but we have to aspire for better.
Yeah because they cut everything except things for old people. Old people get one cut and now it’s the worst thing ever.
The defensiveness when it comes to Labour cuts… are they as large as Tory cuts? No but that’s not a defence, we are at a much lower starting point.
Also this idea that the public is too stupid to recognise the difference is bollocks. Politics is not entirely empirical, perhaps we can dismiss it as “vibes” but if I’m feeling a tightening of my pocket, a worsening of a jobs market and a difficult housing market, that is 100% the responsibility of the government to mitigate those pressures whether they are caused by an external market or previous government.
It is a sad truth that, if you’re going to take a hit, you might as well go the whole hog if you want to survive politically.
The coalition protected things like health spending, tying it to reforms. Given the public response, they’d have been as well just cutting.
Labour increase public spending significantly – and then take a political hit. They’d have been as well front-loading cuts and hoping to build up good feeling later on.
Having someone take the last slice of pizza feels worse than them taking the first.
If you cut a well funded service or services that’s one thing, cutting a service or services that are barely hanging on, that’s a different thing, I don’t know about this post at all, it’s pretty disingenuous and/or misleading,
12 comments
For comparison, George Osborne’s first [spending review](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11579979) in 2010, detailed £81Bn worth of cuts
>Outlining the £81bn cuts package, Mr Osborne vowed to restore “sanity to our public finances and stability to our economy”.
I’m not at all a fan of the welfare reforms, but they very much are not at the same level of the cuts imposed by the tories. I wonder where the disconnect is, perhaps to do with the reporting, or is just with the passage of time and people are affected now so that’s what they’re considering?
So the takeaway here is that labour are at least using a bit of spit as lube when they fuck the sick, the poor and the disabled. How lucky for them, getting the shaft so labour’s donors don’t have to be asked to put their hands in their own pockets.
Keep in mind that YouGov was started by and owned by a Tory.
In other news people are pretty damn stupid/
This is the same thick as shit public that think benefits fraud is off the scale – when tax evasion by millionaires costs more.
But they aren’t higher are they?
It’s cuts on top of those cuts when people were probably hoping it would be the end of austerity or signal a change in policy.
I have no doubts that the Tories would still be worse, but we have to aspire for better.
Yeah because they cut everything except things for old people. Old people get one cut and now it’s the worst thing ever.
The defensiveness when it comes to Labour cuts… are they as large as Tory cuts? No but that’s not a defence, we are at a much lower starting point.
Also this idea that the public is too stupid to recognise the difference is bollocks. Politics is not entirely empirical, perhaps we can dismiss it as “vibes” but if I’m feeling a tightening of my pocket, a worsening of a jobs market and a difficult housing market, that is 100% the responsibility of the government to mitigate those pressures whether they are caused by an external market or previous government.
It is a sad truth that, if you’re going to take a hit, you might as well go the whole hog if you want to survive politically.
The coalition protected things like health spending, tying it to reforms. Given the public response, they’d have been as well just cutting.
Labour increase public spending significantly – and then take a political hit. They’d have been as well front-loading cuts and hoping to build up good feeling later on.
Having someone take the last slice of pizza feels worse than them taking the first.
If you cut a well funded service or services that’s one thing, cutting a service or services that are barely hanging on, that’s a different thing, I don’t know about this post at all, it’s pretty disingenuous and/or misleading,
Comments are closed.