Yeah no, that's what I meant. AIUI, that's self-contradictory.
Not raising taxes means no more funds; no more funds means no increased expenditure; no increased expenditure means continued (WTF does he mean, "no return to"?) austerity. Like, "without raising taxes or making spending cuts"?!? Isn't the problem that spending is far too fucking low compared to what it needs to be, so to escape austerity he must increase spending?
So what I had understood was that he has to either raise taxes or continue austerity; no to both is logically impossible. (Or, OK: Borrow money? But then that's just deferring the increased taxes to the future, so feels like a bit of a fib for marketing.)
But yeah yeah, I'll go read your linky-blah now. (Even though it is Sky News.)
So what I had understood was that he has to either raise taxes or continue austerity; no to both is logically impossible. (Or, OK: Borrow money? But then that's just deferring the increased taxes to the future, so feels like a bit of a fib for marketing.)
But yeah yeah, I'll go read your linky-blah now. (Even though it is Sky News.)
