Don't have time to watch the real version of this interview, but this is very clearly cut in a biased way.
For example, it appears that Vince Cable supports the national insurance rise today based on the fiscal requirement, but would be in favour of cutting it again once the deficit is under control. This is not inconsistent at all. Not only that, but there's strong economic logic behind that sort of position (don't go bust, but cut taxes when you can afford to).
In the short term, some public spending has to go even if that means less bureaucracy (Gordon Brown's idea of economic activity, perhaps inspired by the soviet economies he so admires) In the long term we need to restore the wealth creating sectors of the economy as opposed to the asset bubble / bureaucracy based economy Gordon wants (I forgot the rapidly growing binge drinking, gambling and celebrity sectors)
We have to reduce the size of the public sector and that includes reducing the salaries and pensions of the public sector in the same way that private sector salaries and pensions have been eroded over the last 13 years. Apart from the fiscal motive, there is a philosophical issue - by taking on and claiming to be able to solve all known problems, government has removed all sense of personal responsibility from the public who also need to get off their bottoms and do something for themselves. Also government is almost always the worst way to do anything (exceptions, law and order, defence, foreign /trade policy)
2 comments:
Bollocks!
Don't have time to watch the real version of this interview, but this is very clearly cut in a biased way.
For example, it appears that Vince Cable supports the national insurance rise today based on the fiscal requirement, but would be in favour of cutting it again once the deficit is under control. This is not inconsistent at all. Not only that, but there's strong economic logic behind that sort of position (don't go bust, but cut taxes when you can afford to).
Double bollocks...
You won't cut the deficit by raising taxes.
In the short term, some public spending has to go even if that means less bureaucracy (Gordon Brown's idea of economic activity, perhaps inspired by the soviet economies he so admires)
In the long term we need to restore the wealth creating sectors of the economy as opposed to the asset bubble / bureaucracy based economy Gordon wants (I forgot the rapidly growing binge drinking, gambling and celebrity sectors)
We have to reduce the size of the public sector and that includes reducing the salaries and pensions of the public sector in the same way that private sector salaries and pensions have been eroded over the last 13 years. Apart from the fiscal motive, there is a philosophical issue - by taking on and claiming to be able to solve all known problems, government has removed all sense of personal responsibility from the public who also need to get off their bottoms and do something for themselves. Also government is almost always the worst way to do anything (exceptions, law and order, defence, foreign /trade policy)
Post a Comment