Does it really matter whether the public sector consumes 50% or 40% of the economy?
The politicians argue about and attempt to score points off each other regarding ridiculous details, as they attempt to defend themselves by saying they are no worse than each other. This is true; they are all bad!
Factor in that "official" statistics are always, ALWAYS skewed from reality so that they make the government appear better than warranted, without exception, and suddenly you realise you can be pretty confident that both 40% and 50% are very likely to be short of reality.
But even beyond the fact that government statistics are always and without fail fabrications, taking their most conservative argument that the public sector comprises "only" 40% of GDP, you still run the math very quickly indeed and come automatically to the conclusion that even that level is totally unsustainable. How can 40% of the economy be paid for by the remaining 60%, and everyone be happy with the arrangement? Especially when a large (and growing) slice of the economy is formed by people who are neither in the public or private sector, collecting their unemployment benefit every week?
These are lies (sorry, "statistics") of last year too -- surely anyone out here in the real world knows with certainty that there are a lot more people who have lost their jobs since those statistics, so the numbers are even more out of balance than reported.
No, this all adds up to a monstrously over-inflated and wholely unsustainable bubble in public sector employment over the last decade or so, which necessarily will now burst because it is impossible to sustain any longer.
So much for Prudence, Gordon. Thank you so much for your great stewardship of this economy. If you really wanted to "save the world", you would resign and let someone with a brain have a go on the levers behind the curtain for a while. And take your books on Keynes with you when you leave, please.