Could everyone stop saying things that aren't true

I'm getting bored already with the cuts and voting narrative now, and it's only been a month or two. I wonder if we can bring the AV referendum and the Spending Review forward if only to shut people up. That said, I cannot resist correcting two points that have come up this week. They're both obvious rubbish and the commentariat should really not be repeating these:

1) Budget cuts. Opening a paper today you would have been greeted with the shocking news that less a month after the budget the Tories have pushed cuts from 25% to 40%. Or rather, it would be news if it wasn't bollocks. The Observer, whose chosen party are in power, subtitle their headline as 'Shock demand as ministers step up cost cutting across the public sector'. But any reading of the document in question reveals this to be drivel. I'm sure they are asking what the impact would be if they went up and down on a 25% benchmark on the various items of spend; quite frankly, I'd be appalled if they weren't looking at the ranges. Overall, that 25% is real, as they have clarified, probably trying not to sigh loudly as they did so. There was a tedious Union man on the radio last night who couldn't quite understand the numbers, but was convinced this was 'ideological'. I have never really understood as an insult, as it represents people doing what they think best according to their view of the world. In the 1980s, the Left's objection to Thatcher wasn't that she was 'ideological', but that her ideology was wrong. There is a debate to be had on cuts, but it's about 25% vs 20% (Labour's plans), not 40%.

2) Less importantly, voting reform: we keep hearing that the 'Alternative vote' system will "guarantee" that someone is elected with a majority of votes cast. But that's only true if everyone remembers to preference all the way down on their forms. We know they don't. About 400,000 didn't bother to give a second preference in London in 2008, and they only had to do two.

Here's how it would work. Imagine that in a tight three horse race (far from inconceivable) with a - simplified electorate of 11k. Votes in first pref go as follows:

• Con - 4,500
• Lab - 4,000
• LD - 2,500

Elimination of Liberals (excellent) and they have a string of second prefs, which split equally between Lab, Con and not bothering, say 800/900/800. Hence you get:

• Con - 5,300
• Lab - 4,900

Con win (hurrah) with 48% of the vote. And these outcomes are not uncommon. Actually I am guessing the attrition rate will be higher than this because of the minority party effect. So, AV might get more people over the 50% line (eventually, based on the spurious 'least worst' option). But not all. That may be OK, but can we just say so, rather than talking nonsense again.

In both cases, I'm not opposed to having the arguments, but these are lies and attacks at strawmen, belittling to the people who do it. And really really boring.

Anathema.