Please note that the post below was published more than ten year ago on 21st November 2009 Nick Herbert MP, shadow cabinet member for the Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs, was in Cumbria this morning to see the areas affected by the flooding. He writes on Conservative Home about his visit. Here is an extract. I’ve been in Cumbria today to see the areas affected by the floods. I arrived early in Keswick where I met officials from the Environment Agency. Although the river levels had fallen considerably and homes were no longer flooded, the damage to homes had been done. And the water which had got into houses wasn’t just from the river – it was foul water which had risen from the drains. I talked to fire crews who were pumping flood water back into the river, and discovered that they were from Tyne & Wear and Lancashire. They had been called in at an hours’ notice and had been working on the scene ever since, staying at a local hotel. You cannot fail to be impressed by the...
Comments
1, I don't recall ever asking for "Scandinavian welfare", in fact I wonder, where did the Idea of high levels of welfare come from, was it asked for by the people, or was it offered in return for election by a certain government party?
2, Who endorsed those high levels of welfare? - was there a national referendum to see if people paying taxes were willing to pay for it, and if there was, when was it held and what was the exact question?
3, Since National insurance payments are ringfemced and invested in order to fund peoples, national pension, then there is only the pension of government employees and state workers to worry about, but who offered them a pension that was unaffordable in the first place?
4, for the tax rate its ok, all I ask is you tell me how much you would like and tell me exactly to the penny, what you want it for. Then I will tell you if that's OK or not.
(demand 5)
5. no taxes or spending without consent: no tax, charge or levy shall be imposed, nor any public spending authorised, nor any sum borrowed by any national or local government except with the express permission of the majority of the people, renewed annually on presentation of a properly authenticated budget which shall first have been approved by their respective legislatures;
Frank's basic point, that there had grown up a serious mismatch between the levels of tax people were willing to pay and what level of government provision they expected for it, is undoubtedly right as regards the attitudes of many people. If not yourself Jim.
And he's equally right that we are even less able to afford it now than we were at the time.
Are you willing to pay 10% income tax for a national health service?
Are you willing to pay 8% income tax for police and fire services?
Are you willing to pay 12% income tax to fund welfare?
etc. lets say the majority of the people vote YES / YES / NO
Then we would have an 18% tax rate, police, fire and a national health service. We would not have welfare.
I think there is a lot to be said for it.
Don't think you would very often get a "NO" vote in any category but the mere possibility of such a thing might make those who were running such services look much more carefully at the value for money they were offering the taxpayer.