It is bad to abolish the top rate of income tax, and to lift the cap on bankers' bonuses, in the midst of the Cost of Living Crisis. But to make tax cuts possible by increasing borrowing in order to fund everyday spending? That is mad. The City and the money markets can accommodate themselves to what they regard as bad policy; they were openly preparing to do that in the event of a Corbyn Government. But nothing can be done about mad policy. It is just mad.
And it is bad for MPs to force a Leadership Election in a governing party, since if MPs have lost confidence in the Prime Minister, then they have lost confidence in the Government, and they ought to bring a motion to that effect to the floor of the House of Commons.
But in a nation of at least 67 million, which is undoubtedly still one of the 10 largest economies in the world, and which is a nuclear-armed Permanent Member of the United Nations Security Council, to cede the power to appoint the Prime Minister to 80,000 people who had paid for the privilege, who were representative of no one but themselves, who included children, who included foreign nationals resident abroad, and who proceeded to impose a Prime Minister who enjoyed the support of only one thirteenth of the House of Commons? That is mad.
If it is not, then why did it never happen before 2022, why did nothing remotely like it ever happen before 2019, and why does nothing remotely like it happen in any other parliamentary democracy, including any other Commonwealth Realm? It is just mad.
You'll be judged as having come out of this especially well if there's any justice.
ReplyDeleteAh, but is there, though?
DeleteTax cuts are mad indeed if not accompanied by spending cuts (and John Redwood lays out some excellent ideas for where to start in today’s Telegraph). But this “ since if MPs have lost confidence in the Prime Minister, then they have lost confidence in the Government” is pure nonsense. They have lost confidence only in that Prime Minister, and a new one commands their confidence by default unless and until enough MPs vote to remove her in a subsequent vote of no confidence. The government was elected when the Conservatives won a Parliamentary majority.
ReplyDeleteJohn Redwood? He's dead, isn't he?
DeleteMy view was Margaret Thatcher's, that Leadership challenges in a governing party were improper on that grounds. She was right.
since if MPs have lost confidence in the Prime Minister, then they have lost confidence in the Government
ReplyDeleteDrivel of course. The Prime Minister is not “the government” in a Parliamentary democracy such as ours, and the governing party was elected to govern when it won a parliamentary majority. It may choose any leader who can command a Commons majority (which Liz Truss does by definition unless and until she loses a vote of no confidence).
My view was Margaret Thatcher's, that Leadership challenges in a governing party were improper on that grounds. She was right. There is a reason why no other parliamentary system functions remotely like this, nor did ours until very recently, and in this form until this year.
DeleteCutting taxes without cutting public spending is indeed mad, as the Right has always said. The purpose of tax cuts, apart from the moral argument for allowing people the freedom to reap the fruits of their labour, is to transfer money from the unproductive to the productive sector of the economy (through tax cuts accompanied by public spending cuts).
ReplyDeleteJohn Redwood (six popular ways to cut public spending) writes in the Telegraph today: “Let’s start with the costs of people-trafficking. The thousands of illegal entrants to our country are lodged in expensive hotels. They do not have work permits, and are waiting for enough social housing to be built to move them into subsidised, more permanent accommodation.
The new Home Secretary is right to want to end this trade. If anyone can do so it is Suella Braverman, who can use her legal skills to implement a policy that has long been popular and often announced by governments. If we could get our hotels back it would save large sums and let them return to their proper business. They would then contribute through more taxes on their activities to the national income.
The Government could stop providing grants to farmers to convert food-producing land into wilderness. Recent events should have reminded us that relying on imports from what can become war-torn parts of the world is a bad idea. So let’s not spend money stopping farming.
We need to be more helpful to all those who drive the big trucks to keep our supermarkets full of fresh produce, to keep the supplies to our hospitals, and to deliver much else we need for our lives. We need to help the small businesses that need to drive vans and workday cars to deliver to our homes, to mend our pipes, to maintain our electrical systems, and do much else to support our home maintenance and improvement. We need to ensure emergency vehicles have good access to everyone.
Instead, the Government gives large grants and loans to councils to put in road mismanagement schemes known as “Low Traffic Neighbourhoods”, removing capacity from our main roads and pursuing an anti-vehicle agenda. The more traffic jams we have the fewer visits the plumber can make and the fewer deliveries the van driver drops off.
The Bank of England has said it wants to start selling some of the huge quantity of bonds it spent the last 12 years buying up.
The problem is it paid very high prices for many of these bonds. If it sells at a loss, the taxpayer and Treasury have to pay the Bank for its losses. All chancellors, from Darling to Sunak, signed indemnities against loss for these purchases. The Bank should say it thinks bonds are too cheap to sell this year, sparing us the losses they will otherwise make.
The courts have a large backlog of criminal cases, some of them very important. Why not remove cases about the TV licence fee from the criminal courts to take some of the pressure off?”
John Redwood? He's dead, isn't he? It is staggering that a few weeks ago, he was talked off a potential Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is now an absolute taboo against a top rate of tax less than five per cent higher than it was throughout Gordon Brown's Chancellorship and all but the last month of his Premiership.
DeleteBut in a nation of at least 67 million, which is undoubtedly still one of the 10 largest economies in the world, and which is a nuclear-armed Permanent Member of the United Nations Security Council, to cede the power to appoint the Prime Minister to 80,000 people who had paid for the privilege, who were representative of no one but themselves, who included children, who included foreign nationals resident abroad, and who proceeded to impose a Prime Minister who enjoyed the support of only one thirteenth of the House of Commons? That is mad
ReplyDeleteThis is constitutionally illiterate. We don’t have a presidential system so it doesn’t matter how many people choose the PM or how they’re chosen as no one can be PM without their party commanding a Commons majority, and they can be removed if they ever lose the confidence of that majority.
Stop embarrassing yourself by repeating this drivel.
The present system arose only this year, and anything like it arose only in 2019. Try explaining it to anyone from any other Commonwealth Realm. I have tried. Repeatedly. It is mad.
DeleteMy view was Margaret Thatcher's, that Leadership challenges in a governing party were improper on that grounds. She was right. There is a reason why no other parliamentary system functions remotely like this, nor did ours until very recently, and in this form until this year.
ReplyDeleteThat’s nonsense. There’s a reason we’re virtually alone in “the Commonwealth” in never having had a dictator for centuries. Our splendid parliamentary democracy means any PM can be removed if they overstep the mark through a simple vote of no confidence, guaranteeing no one can ever be PM without the confidence of an elected majority.
There’s nothing “mad” about that system-its perfect.
It underwent yet another dramatic modification only yesterday.
DeleteThere is now an absolute taboo against a top rate of tax less than five per cent higher than it was throughout Gordon Brown's Chancellorship and all but the last month of his Premiership.
ReplyDeleteThere was a “taboo” against Thatcher’s policies-340 leftwing economists signed a letter condemning them. She went on to give us the greatest period of economic growth in our history and cutting the top rate of tax trebled the tax intake. Cutting taxes increases tax intakes? Well, of course, since low taxes mean more rich people will choose to live and work and pay their taxes here.
It’s common sense to anyone but a leftist.
Kiss goodbye to all that, and the next successful rebellion, against uprating benefits by less than inflation, is already underway.
Delete