« | Home | »

Osborne’s Paradoxes

Tags:

Three paradoxes that leap out from a quick reading of the executive summary of the Spending Review:

1. War is Peace: ‘Last year, Britain’s deficit was the largest in its peacetime history’; ‘The Spending Review fully funds Britain’s operations in Afghanistan.’

2. The Magic of Accountability without Regulation: the proposed public service reforms will involve both ‘cutting burdens and regulations on frontline staff’ and ‘improving the transparency, efficiency and accountability of public services’.

3. Less Money = More Power: ‘These priorities are underpinned by radical reform of public services… shifting power away from central government to the local level.’ Central government contributions to local government are set to decline by 26 per cent over the next four years; local government spending will drop by 14 per cent. (Yes, to the Tories ‘the local level’ means ‘the Big Society’ not local government, but that doesn’t make any sense either.)

Comments on “Osborne’s Paradoxes”

  1. Brilliant:

    ‘Last year, Britain’s deficit was the largest in its peacetime history’

    That’s an astonishing catch. One interpretation might be that it indicates the level at which ‘the war’ is something to be consumed by the public, rather than something genuinely construed as war within the heart of the state.

    It also begs the question, how does a war that, on one level, is not happening, ever conclude?

    • Phil says:

      Yes – I even missed it on first reading. Welcome to peacetime!

      Not sure about the third one, though. If central government provides 74% of what it used to and local government 86%, the balance between them has shifted – whether it’s from 50:50 to 46:54, from 9:3 to 8:3 or from 2:6 to 2:7.

      • pinhut says:

        One for the ages, certainly.

        And how many pages apart were the two references? (p6, p10).

        Number 3, I’m with Phil, I don’t see the paradox you are getting at. It could be true, in the sense that the radical reform is the actual handing over of power itself. No?

      • Thomas Jones says:

        They want them to do more but are giving them less to do it with: ‘The Spending Review provides a settlement for local government that radically increases local authorities’ freedom to manage their budgets, but will require tough choices on how services are delivered within reduced allocations.’

        • pinhut says:

          They will have more freedom in how they spend less?

          Freedom should really be rendered as ‘discretion’ then, but they want to have the word ‘freedom’ in there for its more positive connotations.

  2. Oliver Rivers says:

    The term Orwellian really does, for once, apply: War is Peace.

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.


  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • andymartinink on Reacher v. Parker: Slayground definitely next on my agenda. But to be fair to Lee Child, as per the Forbes analysis, there is clearly a massive collective reader-writer ...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: And in Breakout, Parker, in prison, teams up with a black guy to escape; another white con dislikes it but accepts the necessity; Parker is absolutely...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: Parker may not have the integrity and honesty of Marlowe, but I'd argue that Richard Stark writes with far more of both than Raymond Chandler does: Ch...
    • Christopher Tayler on Reacher v. Parker: Good to see someone holding up standards. The explanation is that I had thoughts - or words - left over from writing about Lee Child. (For Chandler se...
    • Geoff Roberts on Reacher v. Parker: ..."praised in the London Review of Books" Just read the article on Lee Child in a certain literary review and was surprised to find this rave notice...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Chris Lehmann: The Candidates
    18 June 2015

    ‘Every one of the Republican candidates can be described as a full-blown adult failure. These are people who, in most cases, have been granted virtually every imaginable advantage on the road to success, and managed nevertheless to foul things up along the way.’

    Hugh Pennington:
    The Problem with Biodiversity
    10 May 2007

    ‘As a medical microbiologist, for example, I have spent my career fighting biodiversity: my ultimate aim has been to cause the extinction of harmful microbes, an objective shared by veterinary and plant pathologists. But despite more than a hundred years of concentrated effort, supported by solid science, smallpox has been the only success.’

    Jeremy Harding: At the Mexican Border
    20 October 2011

    ‘The battle against illegal migration is a domestic version of America’s interventions overseas, with many of the same trappings: big manpower commitments, militarisation, pursuit, detection, rendition, loss of life. The Mexican border was already the focus of attention before 9/11; it is now a fixation that shows no signs of abating.’

    James Meek: When the Floods Came
    31 July 2008

    ‘Last July, a few days after the floods arrived, with 350,000 people still cut off from the first necessity of life, Severn Trent held its annual general meeting. It announced profits of £325 million, and confirmed a dividend for shareholders of £143 million. Not long afterwards the company, with the consent of the water regulator Ofwat, announced that it wouldn’t be compensating customers: all would be charged as if they had had running water, even when they hadn’t.’

Advertisement Advertisement