Osbourne "shocked"

[jack]

Apparently George Osbourne claimed to be "shocked" at how little tax the richest people in the country pay. And many people were legitimately cross that he couldn't plausibly claim to be surprised. But I think that's a little unfair. It's common, if not entirely accurate, to use "shocked" to mean "I always knew this was going on, but when I saw a fresh example of it, I was outraged all over again, and I'm going to go ON being outraged until its fixed, even if people get a bit weary of it".

If he'd been a left-wing campaigner, everyone would have understood him to mean primarily "outraged", not "surprised" per se. I mean, I think he's probably lying about that too -- at this point in the government, a chancellor proposing something new seems more likely to be acting from public opinion than from a previously-concealed conviction. But that's just a guess, I may be unfair in either direction.

Comments

[lokifan]

That's actually a really good point. I mean, I wasn't especially full of outrage about what he said - but you're quite right, if he'd been left-wing I wouldn't assume "shocked" meant "previously unaware of".

[jack]

*hugs* Yeah. I think people are probably reasonable to be cross about it, but exaggerating how literally he meant what he said in order to criticise it is understandable, but probably a bad idea in the long run because however wrong he was, using a straw man just vents ire, doesn't actually say WHAT he was wrong about.

[mathcathy]

Isn't this just another shedload of media hype? The government proposed solution will just move money from charities to government and seems pointless. According to the radio earlier the top 1% of tax payers pay 30% of the tax. Isn't that enough? Is it any of our business if it isn't?