They were waffling on about the Comprehensive Spending Review on the radio this morning*, and it struck me that it might be rather good fun to refer to them as "Giddy's Axe", as a tribue to the Geddes' Axe spending cuts of the 1920s and because George Osborne's original name was Gideon.
I Googled the phrase and it didn't give me any hits, rather surprisingly.
* The debate seems to be over whether the Lib-Cons are actually planning cuts, or just a return to the underlying trend of growth in government spending since 1955? Even Stephanie Flanders of the BBC said that on telly yesterday, which she repeats on her blog here.
What have we wrought in the UK?
5 hours ago
12 comments:
The agenda of this government is driven by Brussels, namely to impose as much hardship as possible until the pips squeak but not enough to threaten the PTB. Step in the EU to wipe out the debt in a series of graduated stages and of course, national sovereignty goes with it.
Cameron, for all his rhetoric, is in thrall to the enforcers, e.g. Osborne and Clarke. Why can't he sack Osborne?
The Beeb line is still Labour, I see: "That was Labour's promised investment in public services." Infuckingvestment, indeed!
JH, you say the EU intends to capitalise on this (no doubt true); I say that this was largely caused by the bankers/politicians/large landowners (i.e. The Home-Owner-Ist elite) who will profit handsomely (in relative terms) when the whole credit and overspending bubble pops, then in a few years' time they can do it all again.
D, fair enoughski, their budgets are going to be reined in a bit as well, it's hardly surprising they whine. Which is why I was pleasantly surprised to see that article on Ms Flanders' BBC 'blog (well worth a quick read).
One thing that has constantly confused me over the course of the whole "debate" over public spending is this:
What exactly are all these "public services" people keep bleating about. I mean sure there's Health, Emergency Services, Education and the various bits and bobs the local council do like bins. Other than that though, what the f*ck are they all going on about, are these "job losses" actually just jobsworth c*nts that try and run our lives and are completely unnecessary?
SW: "What exactly are all these "public services" people keep bleating about."
I'm buggered if I know. Strip out the 5% oif GDP that they (rightly) spend on core functions like defence, law and order, roads, fire brigade refuse collection etc and the government intends to spend about £10,000 each per man, woman and child, per year.
For a pensioner on a decent state pension with 'free' NHS, that seems like £10,000's worth, but the rest of us? What do we get for our money? Why don't they just give us our money back?
"... are these "job losses" actually just jobsworth c*nts that try and run our lives and are completely unnecessary?"
It's far worse than that. It's not just millions of jobsworths.* For every £1 they spend on public sector workers, they spend another £1.66 on 'private sector procurement'. That is the biggest single item of govt spending, it's a fifth of GDP.
* As I've said before, there are over 8 million people in 'Public admin, health, education', but there are only 2 million front line workers (coppers, soldiers, teachers, nurses, doctors, bin men etc). Heck knows what the other 6 million do all day long.
On a preliminary look, a 25% reduction in FCO expenditure appears consistent with our step down as a (pretend) world power: next step will be the surrender of our permanent seat on the security Council. This is, of course, part of the morphing of the EU into a federal state (which, I assume, is being lined up to take the seat)
As an aside, were I a gambling man, I'd short any investments connected with the exploitation of oil reserves in/off the Falklands: military incapability combined with diplomatic impotence will not see off any Argentinian effort to seize the Falklands or just play silly buggers with oil exploration/drilling.
U, the UN is not important any more, so I'm not fussed about our 'permanent seat', but if the EU are so desperate to have one, can't they take France's?
As to Falklands, do you really think the Argies would try again?
"As to Falklands, do you really think the Argies would try again?"
Why wouldn't they, when a government in BA is doing badly in the polls?
Giddy's Axe eh?
More like Giddy's Blunt Penknife.
D, that's the question isn't it? If there is a combination of unpopular right wing despot in BA and an, er, unpopular right wing despot in Downing St then it will probably happen again. Else not.
AC, hence the "giddy" as in "not to be taken too seriously".
MW
dearieme answered for me
Unless we leave the UN (which I would support), why should we give away the Security Council seat? Only a preening dolt like Blair gives away something for nothing (part of our EU rebate in return for the EU "reconsidering" at some future date the structure of the CAP - as if). No-one has seriously suggested - or rather France has not seriously (or ever?) considered - France surrendering its seat to anyone.
U: "Unless we leave the UN (which I would support), why should we give away the Security Council seat?"
Absolutely no reason. In fact, I'd support staying in the UN solely in order to keep our seat, just for the fun of watching France and the EU bicker over who gets France's seat. And then leave the UN anyway.
But it's your department. Not up to me to decide.
Post a Comment