This is to ignore what has actually happened though, pete.
Governments of all stripes since 1979 have taken a decision to "cut back the state" whilst paying for firms and others to provide the service that the state used to have direct control of. The end result is that government spending has kept going up despite measures like things being sold off, services being cut or austerity imposed elsewhere - the state isnt willing for the service to not be provided (or not be provided adequately) because they'd lose out politically, so they keep handing over the cash to keep it going. Spending on things like education, housing, the NHS and others is as a result a lot more expensive than it should be - but the politicians don't get criticised (and get to boast about "new" facilities), and the firms hand over some of the cash to make sure the deals continue.
What is (finally) being offered at this election is that one party is actually proposing to partially reverse this process, which if it is done properly will result in government spending going down in the medium to long term. I think they should be supported for doing it.