Sunday 10 May 2009

Is this the libertarian hour?

We libertarians believe that the state should be reduced in size and that its only legitimate function is that of protecting us against aggressors. Or even that the state isn't necessary at all and that all of its current functions should be privatised, or, perhaps more correctly, transferred to civil society.

The current brouhaha over MPs' expenses is wonderful. If only Chris Tame (a founder of the Libertarian Alliance) had been around to see these events.

But surely the British public, while being rightly angry about MPs' outrageous expense claims, still believes in the big state, does it not?.

For the first time that I can remember the answer may be no.

YouGov asked what people would like to see done about the government’s record borrowing and soaring debt. There was strong backing for the strategy adopted by the Canadian government in the 1990s, when it cut public spending by a fifth over four years; 54% said they would back such a policy and only 22% were opposed. A majority of Labour supporters backed this policy.

Overall, respondents said the burden of reducing government debt should come mainly through cuts in public spending rather than tax rises. Only 7% favoured a policy of solely raising taxes to close the black hole in the public finances.

Most Labour voters want a twenty per-cent cut in government spending! So what are we waiting for? When will "Call me Dave" acknowledge that Labour voters are correct? What about the Liberals (sic) and the SNP?

What do we want?

Cuts.

When do we want them?

Now!

1 comment:

David Farrer said...

Comment made on previous template:

Neil Craig
"Overall, respondents said the burden of reducing government debt should come mainly through cuts in public spending rather than tax rises. Only 7% favoured a policy of solely raising taxes to close the black hole in the public finances .  
 
There was little enthusiasm, however, for the government’s policy of bringing private sector money into the Post Office. Only 20% backed full or part-privatisation of Royal Mail." 
 
Which shows that being human beings, we are able to hold 2 opposing views at once. We want lower government spending but not for it to be lower on whatever we are thinking of. 
 
I think the way round this is to first set a legal limit on the proportion of GNP the state should be allowed to spend (my polls suggest 15% as the most popular) & then any increase in 1 area has to win the argument against all the others. 
 
Interestingly the poll I ran has 12% wanting more state spending compared to their 7% which suggests readers are not self selected anti-statists.

13 May 2009, 13:51:02 GMT+01:00