Solving the World's problems with common sense and a flamethrower.

Thursday, November 20, 2008


Dear Mr Humphrys

Re. your interview with Boris Johnson - a reduction in the rate of increase is not a cut. No matter how many times you frustratedly assert that it IS a cut, it don't make it so.

A cut is a reduction in expenditure, NOT a reduction in the rate of increase. Google can help with definitions if your political bias leads you to misunderstand basic English.

Please don't attempt to mislead your listeners, or I shall be forced firstly to find an alternative radio station, and secondly to set you on fire.




Hedgewytch said...

I vote for set him on fire

Anonymous said...

Er, I'm not so sure you're right there. "Cut" has umpteen definitions of all sorts. "Cut the rate of increase" seems totally valid to me - perhaps to add the interjective "back" as in "cut back" since this is now the fashionable phrase of the year.

btw: John Humphrys irritates me beyond the possibility to describe.

Dungeekin said...


I'd definitely agree with you - if Mr Humphrys had said 'cut the rate of interest' then I'd be ranting a hell of a lot less!

But he didn't - he just used the word 'cut', which implies simply a reduction in budget. And that I find wrong.

Thanks for reading


Anonymous said...

If the increase is below inflation then it is effectively a cut.

IMHO There is far too much twiddling by the various govts with the budgets and taxes. It'd be simpler to index them , let public servants implement the goals , and then let the Politicians act as a board of review as well firing incompetents.