UNREALITY CHECK

*
Robert Peston makes some efforts to present both sides of the NI argument but it seems he just can't help himself:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/parties_and_issues/8606834.stm

Now, the Conservatives would also argue that the private sector is more efficient at generating the revenues and wealth that pay for public services than the public sector.

Which would be another reason for not increasing the tax burden on the private sector.

There is, however, one important counter-argument, about the nature of the good society.

An important dividing line between Labour and the Tories in this election is over how much of their plans to cut public borrowing should be financed by spending cuts and how much by tax increases.

The Tories would cut £4 of public spending for every additional pound they would raise from new taxes.

By contrast Labour would reduce state expenditure by just £2 per pound of new taxes.

Run that by me again Robert. There is "one important counter-argument" to the Tories' case, and that is "about the nature of the good society." What does he mean by that? That the 'important counter-argument' is the one that will favour "the good society" rather than the Conservative argument, which presumably won't? Or, in other words, Labour's 'counter-argument' will favour "the good society" rather than the Conseratives argument, which won't?
*
Is that what he means?