A word from Mr Hannan

 

 

I’ve just watched the soi-disant “March for the Alternative” snaking its way across London. It is clear enough, from the banners and slogans, what the protesters are against: spending restraint, open markets, private enterprise, property rights, free contract, Tories, bankers and Nick Clegg. Fair enough. But what are they for?

Their website suggests that they think the answer to our debt crisis is more spending. In fact, they don’t think we have much of a debt crisis. They want higher taxes, particularly for the rich, whom they expect to wait around meekly to be fleeced. And they insist that higher state expenditure (”investment”) will create more jobs. Why so half-hearted, comrades? Why not go all the way, nationalise every business, place every adult on the state payroll and confiscate all income? By your logic, it would surely make Britain the most prosperous country on Earth.

I can’t imagine what prompted Labour leaders to get involved with this madness, but I suspect that they have just added a couple of years to their spell in Opposition. Ed Miliband, sounding almost reasonable compared to the official demands of the marchers, says that he would halve the deficit over this Parliament instead of eliminating it altogether. Let’s leave aside, for a moment, whether the Coalition’s proposals really would bring us back to surplus over five years – a prospect which strikes me as optimistic. The truth is that, as yet, there haven’t been any net cuts. Every month since the general election has seen rises in taxation, spending and borrowing.

Ministers hope to close the deficit by allowing the private sector to grow faster than the public. In other words, although the state will end up being smaller as a percentage of GDP, it will be larger in absolute terms. To be clear, then, Labour isn’t proposing to cut spending more slowly than the Coalition, but to increase it more quickly.

After “No Cuts!” the marchers’ favourite slogan was “Fairness!” Alright, then. How about parity between public and private sector pay? Or job security? Or pensions? How about being fair to our children, whom we have freighted with a debt unprecedented in peacetime? How about being fair to the boy who leaves school at 16 and starts paying taxes to subsidise the one who goes to university? How about being fair to the unemployed, whom firms cannot afford to hire because of the social protection enjoyed by existing employees?

The protesters might have engaged in a serious argument by identifying alternative spending reductions.  Instead, they have decided to indulge their penchant for empty, futile, self-righteous indignation.

 

 

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “A word from Mr Hannan

  1. “They want higher taxes, particularly for the rich, whom they expect to wait around meekly to be fleeced.”-I don’t think that they want higher taxes for the rich, but rather they’d like the rich to actually pay their taxes

  2. What a completely misguided and nonsense blog. The TUC were calling for a continuation of job creation schemes and spending to protect frontline services rather than increased spending.

    Your point about taxing the rich is hugely disrespectful of our hard working public & private sector workers. Yes they are calling for a FTT (Robin Hood) Tax, but I fail to see how increased tax on those institutions that caused the ‘mess’ our economy is in should be left alone to keep their enormous profits while teacher, nurses, street cleaners etc lose their jobs or have their pay and pensions cut. The public sector didn’t cause this crisis, and they shouldn’t bear the full brunt of it.

    Furthermore, I imagine you, like most Tories, would be strongly critical of strike action by public sector workers. The way unions are demonised if they strike in opposition to pay and pensions cuts, or damaging reforms is disgraceful when any suggestion that the mega-rich be made to pay for their crisis is greeted with cries of “please no! Don’t do it. They’ll leave! They’ll run away and not grow our economy!” If it’s threats our governments are persuaded by then maybe the TUC should be threatening strike action.

    And finally, as usual the slight disparity between public and private sector pay is NOT a reason to punish public sector workers, but simply a reason to decry the continued low wages in the private sector.

  3. It seems Britain has gone from extreme to another. If the 1970s was were Britain was held to ransom by the Unions, it’s the 2000s and 2010s that Britain was held to ransom by the rich and the banks. The only reason that the latter has been acceptable for so long is that it’s far more discreet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s