Skip to main content

Shock News: Telegraph gets it right!

I don't usually agree with Op-Ed pieces in the Daily Telegraph.

This morning, however, there is a very good piece from Philip Johnston.

He points out that the repeated promises -over decades- from politicians of all stripes to make "efficiency savings" are actually impossible to deliver without a radical reform of the system of public expenditure.

The Civil Service is only interested in controlling the costs of expenditure in the current system. They are not interested in whether the system should be changed or even whether much of what government is prescribing is actually necessary at all.

What today's Pre-Budget report is going to show is that the British cupboard- apart from some mouldy crumbs of envy taxes- is totally empty. Unless we tackle the systemic costs of the public sector we are going to face even more rapid economic decline.

Over the long term, the burden of sustaining an extraordinary wasteful state sector is going to fall on a declining number of increasingly impoverished private pension holders. There is no option: in the 19th century, at the height of the British Empire, the state sector represented 10% of GDP, after the First World War it had grown to 20%. After the Second War, it was close to half. In the past year it has grown by 11% to just a shade under 60%, but that does not include a £500 billion unfunded state pension liability. The size of the British public sector is now quite close to that of a Communist state such as East Germany.

It is not sustainable.

We are reaching the end of the road.


Newmania said…
To be fair the Telegraph has been getting this right all along.
Dave B said…
The Conservatives did a series of events hosted by the CPS on the theme of the Post Bureaucratic Age.

They did seem to be asking the 'what should the role of the state be' question. I'll be very interested to see what crops up in the Conservative manifesto.

Writing in Standpoint, Oliver Letwin said:

"... the direction in which the programme seeks to take Britain is into a post-bureaucratic age. The ambition is to liberate the energies and reinforce the social bonds of our people so that they can achieve what has not been achieved and will never be achieved by the mechanisms of centralised bureaucratic micro-management.

it can reasonably be asserted (because it is true) that each of the reforms has been carefully crafted to ensure that none requires additional funding at the start. And it is also true that one of the aims of each reform is progressively to reduce demands on the taxpayer. This is to be achieved partly through the progressive strengthening of social responsibility and partly through progressively increasing efficiency — engendered by increased transparency, increased accountability and increasingly liberated enterprise.

In other words, the decentralising and de-bureaucratising programme aims to achieve substantially better economic, social and environmental outcomes for any given level of input — stabilising our public finances in the medium term in the right way, by getting decisively more bang for the taxpayer's buck."
Roger Thornhill said…
The role of the State SHOULD be zero.

Practically, you can argue for Defence, Police-Courts-Prisions as they are about enabling the law abiding to go about their business unmolested by State or criminal.

After that, the case for State run monopoly (and believe me, they hate to run anything in a true market) needs to be argued for, not argued against, i.e. the default is 'no".

The State is bad, the question is if it is the least bad.
Dave said…
D'ancona in the Sunday Telegraph:

"To really get to grips with this," one senior Cameroon told me yesterday, "we have to reinvent the relationship between the citizen and the state." That's exactly right. If the Cameron-Osborne revolution is to be real, it must be about more than the politics of cuts; it must be about weaning an entire country off the malfunctioning, bloated post-war state.

Popular posts from this blog

Post Truth and Justice

The past decade has seen the rise of so-called "post truth" politics.  Instead of mere misrepresentation of facts to serve an argument, political figures began to put forward arguments which denied easily provable facts, and then blustered and browbeat those who pointed out the lie.  The political class was able to get away with "post truth" positions because the infrastructure that reported their activity has been suborned directly into the process. In short, the media abandoned long-cherished traditions of objectivity and began a slow slide into undeclared bias and partisanship.  The "fourth estate" was always a key piece of how democratic societies worked, since the press, and later the broadcast media could shape opinion by the way they reported on the political process. As a result there has never been a golden age of objective media, but nevertheless individual reporters acquired better or worse reputations for the quality of their reporting and

We need to talk about UK corruption

After a long hiatus, mostly to do with indolence and partly to do with the general election campaign, I feel compelled to take up the metaphorical pen and make a few comments on where I see the situation of the UK in the aftermath of the "Brexit election". OK, so we lost.  We can blame many reasons, though fundamentally the Conservatives refused to make the mistakes of 2017 and Labour and especially the Liberal Democrats made every mistake that could be made.  Indeed the biggest mistake of all was allowing Johnson to hold the election at all, when another six months would probably have eaten the Conservative Party alive.  It was Jo Swinson's first, but perhaps most critical, mistake to make, and from it came all the others.  The flow of defectors and money persuaded the Liberal Democrat bunker that an election could only be better for the Lib Dems, and as far as votes were concerned, the party did indeed increase its vote by 1.3 million.   BUT, and it really is the bi

Media misdirection

In the small print of the UK budget we find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer (the British Finance Minister) has allocated a further 15 billion Pounds to the funding for the UK track and trace system. This means that the cost of the UK´s track and trace system is now 37 billion Pounds.  That is approximately €43 billion or US$51 billion, which is to say that it is amount of money greater than the national GDP of over 110 countries, or if you prefer, it is roughly the same number as the combined GDP of the 34 smallest economies of the planet.  As at December 2020, 70% of the contracts for the track and trace system were awarded by the Conservative government without a competitive tender being made . The program is overseen by Dido Harding , who is not only a Conservative Life Peer, but the wife of a Conservative MP, John Penrose, and a contemporary of David Cameron and Boris Johnson at Oxford. Many of these untendered contracts have been given to companies that seem to have no notewo