The Taxpayers’ Alliance is piling the pressure on Labour with the re-launch of the “debt clock,” now showcasing the UK’s ballooning national debt in real time as it soars past £2.5 trillion. The numbers are grim: debt is climbing by £381 million every day, and co-conspirators can see the figure increasing £4,410 every second on the site. The NHS could be fully funded for 14 years with the amount we owe…
John O’Connell, chief executive of the Taxpayers’ Alliance tells Guido of the worrying signs of the usual Labour spending strategy:
“Despite reassuring rhetoric, all signs are that Labour are going to continue to be a high spending government throwing money at every problem under the sun. Interest rates may have been low in the past but they have risen now and UK debt is consistently rising at an astronomical rate with taxpayers ultimately going to foot the bill.”
Interest payments on this colossal debt are draining the taxpayer of an eye-watering £102.2 billion, making it the government’s fifth largest expense last year alone. While Rachel Reeves is quick to point fingers at the so-called Tory black hole, she’s been conveniently quiet on this burden that lands on the backs of Britons…
Reactions from Westminster’s wonks are in. Free market think tanks view the whopping 40 bills as a mixed bag…
The Adam Smith Institute’s Maxwell Marlow calls it “a case of the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.” Planning reforms “if executed properly” could get Britain building alongside “welcome relief” of leasehold and commonhold reform, and the legalisation of the sale of lab grown meat. The ASI criticises the smoking ban, dubbed a “black market charter“, and decries the VAT on private schools for “actually costing taxpayers and causing chaos as pupils leave their independent schools“. Employment rights changes will add “constraints” on businesses, while tinkering around venue and regulatory changes are “further worrying signs that this is a government that will expand the size and scope of the regulatory state.” Bureaucratic creep will ensue…
John O’Connell, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, says “taxpayers will be deeply disappointed by a legislative programme that fiddles with everything while fixing nothing… the agenda is dominated by low-priority issues and nakedly disastrous proposals, from a race equality bill to banning smoking, a football regulator and VAT on private schools.” Cutting…
The Centre for Policy Studies focuses on planning. Its Head of Housing, Samuel Hughes, says it is “welcome to see the Government being ambitious in its proposals, but these are only first steps. Only a full suite of reforms across policy and guidance will give the country any chance of seeing a housebuilding boom on the scale we so desperately need.” YIMBY appetites have been whetted…
Institute of Economic Affairs Executive Director Tom Clougherty welcomes planning changes but warns “pro-growth measures risk being held back by new red tape and risky ‘mission-led’ central planning.” He targets the North Sea oil and gas ban and a stack of new regulations, which will “reduce flexibility and increase structural unemployment” while nationalisations are “fraught with the risks of wasted taxpayer money, trade union dominance, and cronyism.”
Now the UK is well and truly state-led again, the outcomes of these projects rely on the actions of the government and its managers. It will go the same as always.
Rachel Reeves targeted planning in her first speech as Chancellor, and the reaction from the free-market think tanks has been unusually positive. The theme amongst the wonks is “we welcome the plans”. Cosying up to the new leading party…
The Institute of Economic Affairs spokesman hails the plans: “Rachel Reeves is right to emphasise the importance of growth in tackling Britain’s challenges…Undoubtedly, the most exciting part of the agenda is the government’s immediate plans to reform the planning system”. Labour pleasing the YIMBYs…
The Adam Smith Institute‘s Maxwell Marlow said: “We welcome the Chancellor’s plans to introduce supply-side reforms…Overall, this indicates a seriousness of purpose in fixing one of the greatest drags on Britain’s prosperity.” Though it’s correctly pointed out “plans must be based on results rather than intentions”…
The Taxpayers’ Alliance‘s CEO John O’Connell writes: “Taxpayers will welcome the chancellor’s commitment to delivering growth and her genuine grasp of the problems with the planning system”. They don’t point out that Reeves’ plan to hire 300 new planning officers will cost £20 million a year alone, which ultimately falls on…the taxpayer…
As Guido noted earlier, these promises have been made before. Actions speak louder than words…
Newly launched free market campaign group Popular Conservatism is ramping up operations with new hires. Former Freedom Association Chief Executive Andrew Allison has already been confirmed as Head of Campaigns. Now other key positions have been filled…
Heavy-lifting personnel will be needed in the upcoming Tory wars…
As Labour announce its plans to nationalise railways, the free-market think tanks have already got the wheels rolling to warn against the socialist idea. Nationalisation stifles competition and innovation – a repeat of the 70s isn’t something anyone wants…
The Institute of Economic Affairs blasted the”lacking in detail” proposal, writing “the ritual denunciation of profits and the belief that ‘communities’ (or rather political bosses) have a role to play; but their role always seems to be to demand more money, resist closures, and open more lines, irrespective of any commercial discipline.”
The Adam Smith Institute‘s Director of Research Max Marlow pointed out how nationalisation hasn’t worked in past: “Nationalisation would be completely counter productive. During the 47 years of nationalised railways in the UK, passenger numbers collapsed and service was abysmal, even shocking by modern standards”. Guido’s sure Labour would respond with something along the lines of “it’ll work this time”…
Leaders in the rail industry have also hopped aboard to attack the plans. Andy Bagnall, chief executive of Rail Partners, said that “nationalisation is a political rather than a practical solution which will increase costs over time”. Just this morning the Shadow Transport Secretary admitted it wouldn’t lower fare costs…
Meanwhile, details on just how much this would cost are scant. The House of Commons Library’s Economic Policy and Statistics clerk says: “The government would be taking on all the costs involved with running the services, which are significant, and would be responsible for generating revenues from the services… I am afraid I am not able to produce an estimate myself and have not found a reliable estimate made by another organisation.” Off the rails…
The Good Law Project has a found a fresh new target to swing at. They announced last night that they’re going to challenge the Charity Commission over the Institute of Economic Affairs’ charity status due to its so-called “political campaigning and unbalanced educational research“. Maugham has “teamed up” with a small handful of usual suspect leftie MPs including Clive Lewis and Layla Moran to bring this next losing case. Not very charitable of them…
The case was formed off a complaint (made by themselves, of course) and it looks like Maugham’s latest crusade appears to be attacking free-market think-tanks and their charitable status based on whether they are too political or not. It seems he never runs out of bad ideas. Think-tanks, indeed as the Chairman of the Charity Commission said himself, “make an enormously positive contribution to intellectual debate” and just because they engage in political activities shouldn’t mean they have their charitable status called into question. A spokesperson for the Institute of Economic Affairs hits back at the tireless fox beater:
“This complaint is a vexatious publicity stunt. It contains nothing new and little of substance. The Charity Commission has been clear that approaching economic and political science from a free market perspective is legitimate and consistent with our status as an educational charity. The IEA will not be deterred from its mission to advance the public understanding of economics by political activists with an axe to grind.”
Guido doesn’t think the IEA have to worry. If Jolyon’s track record is anything to go by, the case will be in the ditch by summer…
