Wealth creation and public spending

So here we go again. The battle lines are drawn, and how numbingly predictable it is. For the next 11 months we are fated to endure a necrarchy, a zombie government – and a brain-dead argument about public spending. [...] I want to hear politicians talk less about themselves and their priorities and more about the entrepreneurs, the people who get up at 5am to organise their business or cut deals with the other side of the world. Every time you hear politicians swanking about what they are going to do with public funds, remember that wealth was ultimately created by private enterprise; and, if they don't help the wealth creators, they won't have any money to spend. [The full article can be seen as first printed in the Daily Telegraph on 15 June 2009]

18 thoughts on “Wealth creation and public spending”

  1. Boris Johnson dives into the dispute of spending cuts v. investment and sorts it out with a firm hand. Totally right as always.

  2. We can expect things to improve now that we have no effective Government. Countries with ‘weak coalition governments’ tend to do well because the politicians are unable to keep monkeying with everything. Any changes have to be slow and consensual.

    The UK suffers from Bipolar Politics Disorder where a party that receives 22% of the available votes, Labour in 2005, can act as if it owns the place. Look how successful the last two years of the Major Government were – low inflation, falling unemployment, a fiscal surplus and the beginning of peace in Northern Ireland. Zombie governments – more of them please!

  3. Angela!

    Boris must be awfully pleased to have your unwavering support of him through thick and thin!

    And though I quite agree with Boris’ correct-sentiments on many occasions and thankfully on this one, I have thought it only a point of conscience to wrap his knuckles whenever our respective views diverge – particularly with respect to morals.

    As one of those entrepreneurs trying to invest hard earned money into new businesses, I very pleased at today’s post!

  4. Franz I wouldn’t say anything I didn’t mean.

    ps. ” particularly with respect to morals. ”

    I don’t believe that the morals of politicians are our business. In any case, how can you possibly make a judgment unless you are in possession of all the facts, and that will never happen. Ergo, it is wrong to judge.

  5. Main point appreciated, Tiresias: you made me laugh. Not so sure this Government has quite understood the rules of zombie-dom, though. The equality reporting rule proposed by Ms Harman and rightly attacked by Boris is just plain daft – lots of work and anyone with any sense will just find a suitable paragraph (or six) to explain that pay is equal “when all other factors are taken into account”. All the time and effort would be more usefully spent generating revenue and jobs for everyone.

  6. Peter Mandelson now thinks he is the PM, not Gay Gordon ( even the Labour Ministers and MPs think so !!! ). He’s so arrogant that he has just declared in an interview that Britain will join the Euro under Labour. Even Gay Gordon and Darling had to say they did not know anything about this, after reading his interview (!!!).
    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/money/article2098980.ece

    Even the Queen is a very modest person. But, as we can see, not all queenies are modest.

  7. Noiseur, I agree with you about the presumption of Lord Mandelson. Not democratically elected, he is exceeding his authority. Don’t we have any say in the matter?

  8. Good one Boris….I would add that a more self sufficient economy is also needed and wealth should be redistributed towards gearing up for our home grown talents and an internal business network as a cornerstone and fallback aswell as the encouragement of our entrepreneurs who will ultimately be the ones who will lead us out of this mess.

  9. ” Why is Hattie being allowed to pursue her hopelessly outdated Sixties Spare Rib agenda? ”

    Boris rightly points out that as well as being a ruinous burden for small businesses, the cost of implementing this ludicrous scheme will be phenomenal and just another drain on the tax payer.

  10. Peter Mandelson is the Lord High Everything Else. One does not question such authority. One is merely honoured to obey it. The highest aim for any subject of His Lordship must be to believe fervently everything the great man says and then to believe equally fervently when he says the opposite. Have no truck with those who point out that ‘Peter Mandelson’ is an anagram of ‘Lamented Person’.

  11. Tiresias – “We can expect things to improve now that we have no effective Government. Countries with ‘weak coalition governments’ tend to do well because the politicians are unable to keep monkeying with everything. Any changes have to be slow and consensual.”

    Which is the flaw in the argument that abolition of the Whips would render Government ‘ineffectual’. If Government couldn’t take action without the approval of Parliament (instead of demanding that approval through the Whips), it would be much harder for them to do stupid things, and still fairly easy for them to do sensible things.

    Abolish the Whips – bring back Democracy!

    Oh, and well said Boris 🙂

  12. The previous mayor made 2 highly risky, but ultimately hugely successful, interventions: the Congestion Charge and the Oystercard.

    I’m hardly the first person to point this out, but it’s impossible to see what the current mayor believes in, other than keeping everybody happy in a rather spineless way. These are wasted years for London, they will not see bold moves like those 2 above.

    The current is big on flowery words, small on a unifying vision.

  13. Berti, also your other alter egos…..

    Let me refer you to the remarks made on The Late Debate last night with Alastair Steward interviewing Boris Johnson. I have summarised this interview in the forum.

  14. “…sometimes you will hear politicians mysteriously change sides in the argument, with the ease of a hermaphroditic parrotfish, reassigning its own gender”.

    When discusing tax. cuts v. investment, this is how Boris describes the way politicians switch back and forth in the argument, as expediency dictates. Ha ha, the things these politicians do in the cause of self advancement!

    We may laugh, but there is a hugely important point being made in this article; it is the 23.6 million private sector employees and good old British business who are the wealth creators, but when matters are hashed out in the Commons, who remembers this?

    The public money that Gordon is so eager to spend was created by the entrepreneurs. The PM may give lip service to his support of these people, but how far does that actually go? Gordon reserves the majority of his time pressing his case as our economic saviour. Presenting themselves in the best light seems to be the number one priority of everyone in Parliament.

    “…remember that wealth was ultimately created by private enterprise and if they don’t help the wealth creators, they won’t have any money to spend.”

    Well said Boris and Mrs. Thatcher would be proud of you.

  15. It’s true. And when choosing a Speaker, the last thing any of them will think about is who would be best for the job and the country. It is all about points scoring and getting one over on their opposite number.

    John Berkow? Labour are dead keen to get up Cameron’s nose because they think he got rid of “one of their own”. How petty and bloody stupid! Michael Martin was a useless Speaker and the way he blocked expenses reform was a disgrace. He also let David Cameron be shouted down for five minutes without intervening, as a last petty act of revenge. Maybe Guy Fawkes had the right idea.

  16. Has Harriet Harman ever worked in industry? Has she ever considered wht is involved in running the convenience stores that Boris talks about, and how she will be burdening them most unfairly with more pointless paperwork? As Boris also points out, who is going to deal with these forms when they are handed in and at what cost to the country?

  17. Taxation has to be fair. Gordon Brown and many Tories do not understand this.

    Just an example, many English Premier League clubs are about to lose out in attracting the best players in the world. Why? A 30% drop in the value of sterling and a whopping great increase in UK taxes.

    I have to say I am very much in favour of a standard rate tax of around 28% for everyone no how much you earn. At the same time ALL tax shelters and allowances would be scrapped. There would be no loopholes no avoidance schemes everyone would pay 28% of their earnings.

    Business taxation would also be 28% (or 33% if NI is scrapped) for every business no matter the size of the business.

    A generous personal allowance (£7,500p.a.) will ensure that the lowest paid in our society are given every assistance to avoid the poverty trap.

    National Insurance should be scrapped, as it really is just additional bureaucracy to collect income tax. This may result in a small percentage rise in the standard tax rate proposed, but nothing like the 20% government currently takes. More like 5% taking the standard rate to 33% but with no NI.

    It is a complete nonsense that the taxman would take more out of your paypacket that you get yourself.

    It is highly likely that the government would collect more tax in this manner than by increasing taxes.

    As for pensions and investment, the average national pay is about £23,000 p.a. Most people cannot invest more than 20% of this money; therefore the maximum annual tax free pension contribution would be limited to £4,600 p.a.

    Death duty should be scrapped; this wealth has already been taxed.

    Fuel duty should be halved immediately.

    The above measure would eliminate the need to give so many government handouts to industry and all businesses would benefit.

    What Gordon Brown did not do was start a program to make the UK self sufficient in energy (petrol, diesel, gas and electricity) and ensure that the UK has the best communications infrastructure in the world (That means every location in the UK had broadband internet access at a minimum of 100Mb/s.

    Where would the spending cuts come? Mostly defence procurement. There is no way that the UK can afford costly new Nuclear weapons from the USA at this moment. However, the taxation cuts would eliminate the need for many industrial grants.

    The business environment would be invigorated.

Comments are closed.