13 May 2010

Con-Dem anti-reason anti-business coalition

Well it's out, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition has shown its true colours, and they are colours of a red and green coloured wolf in the sheep's clothing of Cameron and Clegg. The new government is no more friendly to capitalism and to reason than the last one.

The coalition agreement now published gives the impression of being pro-business, and the impression of dealing with the budget deficit, but it commits to a vast range of new spending measures, and to interfere with private businesses on a grand scale in multiple sectors.

The envy-touting, dependency supporting left should be relieved, and the Greens thrilled.

Take the following:

- "The parties agree that funding for the NHS should increase in real terms in each year of the Parliament, while recognising the impact this decision would have on other departments. The target of spending 0.7% of GNI on overseas aid will also remain in place." Yes, the NHS, subject already to record spending increases in the past, can continue to extract ever greater inefficiencies, and not be accountable for it. Meanwhile, the British taxpayer will have to mortgage to continue increasing state aid to developing kleptocracies.

- "We will restore the earnings link for the basic state pension from April 2011 with a “triple guarantee” that pensions are raised by the higher of earnings, prices or 2.5%, as proposed by the Liberal Democrats" So the retired wont have to face any austerity, just their children and grandchildren. Why? Well given they voted for profligate governments in the past you might well ask.

- "We further agree to seek a detailed agreement on taxing non-business capital gains at rates similar or close to those applied to income, with generous exemptions for entrepreneurial business activities" No income tax wont be coming down, it is about increasing capital gains tax. Yes, if you get capital gains for your OWN profit, not for "business" then screw you, Clammyegg wants your money.

- "We agree that a banking levy will be introduced. We will seek a detailed agreement on implementation.. We agree to bring forward detailed proposals for robust action to tackle unacceptable bonuses in the financial services sector" Why? Well let's tax one of the country's most successful service sectors, never mind which banks never needed a bailout and those that did. Oh and let's deter the most successful people in the sector being tax resident in the UK, to please the envy ridden proletariat. So it's off to Switzerland for that lot then?

- "We have agreed that there should be an annual limit on the number of non-EU economic migrants admitted into the UK to live and work" Don't worry, you'll not be attracting the best and brightest anyway, they'll be leaving. Nice sop to the BNP though.

- Finally, taxpayers will prop up a massive programme of Green fetishes and an effective end to growth in the British aviation sector including "The creation of a green investment bank" (quite where the money comes from is irrelevant), "Measures to encourage marine energy" (again, whose money?), "The establishment of a high-speed rail network" (ah the grand show off project that has next to no positive environmental impact), " The cancellation of the third runway at Heathrow. The refusal of additional runways at Gatwick and Stansted" (privately owned airports and the airline industry can go to hell, less competition for European airports and airlines), "Mandating a national recharging network for electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles" (with whose money?).

So that's it. More spending, more taxes, more regulation of the current crop of hated businesses (banking and aviation), and worshipping at the totem of environmental fetishes regardless of cost and benefit.

No reason behind most of it, and a distinctly anti-business agenda particularly if you are in finance or aviation.

Anything for freedom? Well, besides scrapping ID cards, ending the storage of internet and email records without "good reason", and something called a "Freedom Bill", there isn't much. Free schools, paid for by taxpayers maybe, and talk of some tax cuts (which don't offset tax increases of course).

Anyone who voted Conservative expecting less government, less interference in business and a more reason based view of policy should be sorely disappointed. When the Treasury briefs the new government on the fiscal debacle, it will become clear how little of this can be afforded, and so it will be a lie, taxes will go up dramatically, other spending will be slashed substantially or a conbination of it all. Furthermore, with a new agenda of faith based Green initiatives, reason appears to be distinctly absent from this administration. The government wont be shrinking.

Fortunately I didn't vote Conservative.


StephenR said...

Surely if more people did vote Conservative, their policies (as watered down as they are) wouldn't have this Lib-Dem flavour to them.

Jeremy Harris said...

If you don't mind me asking who did you vote for... None of my business I know just curious as I believe the only person you honestly could vote for is yourself...

I think the bottom line, is the deficit is going to force this coalitions hand anyway and a lot of this document will have been a pipe dream anyway... Surely running 12% of GDP deficits with near 100% of GDP debt cannot continue long...

NZ is heading in the same direction in 5 years or so... Lucky Cullen paid down so much debt...

Libertyscott said...

Stephen - The Conservatives were already committed to increasing taxes, so it would have been unconscionable to vote Tory for me. Don't see much point drinking diluted poison.

Jeremy - It isn't a secret, I posted before that I held my nose and voted UKIP, because it believed in cutting spending to 1997 levels and in flat income tax.

You're right of course, there will need to be serious austerity measures.

NZ is still in some trouble, it is as lucky that Ruth Richardson bit the bullet in the early 90s to cut the deficit, Bill Birch finished the job, and while Cullen did pay down debt much much more could have been done, as he engaged in the money down the bottomless hole spending that Brown did - except that it wasn't deficit spending.

NZ needs austerity too, but the current lot are simply Labour lite. The same results come from the same mistakes in health, education, pensions and welfare, as the public are mostly either like children - terrified of making their own choices, or like parents, they want to make choices for everyone else.

Still, the only reason NZ isn't at the bottom of the OECD in GDP per capita is because membership now extends to Turkey and Mexico. NZ stopped a relative decline, but it also stopped climbing up after the late 90s.

Jeremy Harris said...

Really, surely Greece is plummetting down the OECD rankings lately..?

Anonymous said...

Jeremy, good question. Liberty told us in an earlier post who he voted for and how bad he felt doing it (LOL). In fact liberty is no stranger to electioneering having led the NZ libbers to an embarrassing defeat in 2005. Party kaumatua Lindsay Perigo, had confidently predicted ten thousand votes. They received fewer than one thousand. I voted for the libber candidate in 2005 as a joke and out of sympathy because he was actually quite a nice guy to talk to and I knew he would get done like a dogs dinner. He was. My party vote went to Labour. The British voters have just dismissed their lib candidates in a similar fashion. For a read about the NZ lib results go to
and for some light relief try
There are many sites on the web pointing up the shortcomings of this set of beliefs. Ian

Libertyscott said...

*Slow clap* Set up your own blog and engage in rational debate Ian, you're no longer welcome to come here and shit on me. I have enough going on in my life at the moment to keep giving you a platform to be snarky. Get your own.

Libertyscott said...

Oh and that site you linked to is amusing, since it doesn't confront the non-initiation of force principle.

On step one, feel free to defend the war on drugs, it isn't just libertarians that confront it as an abject failure. If you read a more recent Free Radical article it had a thoughtful look at how drug legalisation would need far more steps to avoid the social issues you outline, but that wouldn't fit your statist view of the world.

On step two, point out where I do that.

Step three, when have I ever seen smoking isn't bad for you, when have I ever excused toxic pollution, when have i ever said drink driving should be legal? Doesn't matter, you are just here to shit on me.

Step four: I've never given a damn about seatbelt laws, in fact I think a private road owner would have road rules that in many cases parallel the status quo. The same argument, of course applies to anything anyone else believes in good for people.

Step five: Well you can be a pessimist if you like, but remarkably human beings are rather innovative. I can't imagine why people can't think like that. However, if you think the worst of people then you'll assume they need parenting.