The FT reported today that David Cameron's strategy chief, Steve Hilton, wants to abolish maternity rights and all consumer protection legislation.
The ideas are barking mad. I always find it amazing that a party where many obsess about the unborn child shows so much contempt for the ones that are born and their mothers.
As for consumer protection legislation - if Hilton does not realise that consumer protection legislation is vital to confidence and so to current levels of consumption then he is barking mad (or maybe, just bad).
Let me explain this. Consumer protection legislation has two consequences. One is it enforces standards, so better products are offered to the consumer. And because the consumer knows if things go wrong they can get a remedy their confidence increases - so they buy more because they know that their risk is lower than it would be without that legisaltion.
Remove that confidence and consumers will have reduced confidence. So they will have to set more aside to cover their risk if the products they buy are faulty and they have no remedy. Which means they will be forced to save more and buy less.
That's the impact of supply side reform proposed by the people in this government - outcomes that are exactly the opposite of what the economy needs and exactly the opposite of what the people of this country want and deserve.
Supply side reforms will deliver recession. But the ideologues in the Tories want a vast range of such reforms. The cost of the harm that such reform would cause is inestimable, but enormous.
I'd like to say this was Tory madness but that's too kind: this is a story of Tory badness. That's because I think they do understand this - and they want the increased wealth disparity that would result from it. I've ceased giving them the benefit of the doubt - malevolent policy does not deserve it.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Unusual for me, I know, but this time I’m on their side. From what I can understand of the context in which these ideas were voiced, they were brainstorming. In brainstorming, anything goes, it’s part of the creative and inspirational process. You voice ideas you’d never contemplate putting into practice just to set off creative trains of thought. Someone’s being mischievous leaking this to the press.
BB
Trickle down, the main thrust of supply side economics. If the rich get tax cuts, or more money. or both, this means that the rich will be able to put more money into the economy and therefore benefit all of us. If they are properly taxed, so the argument goes, the economy misses out on that extra spending. This is believed in certain quarters to be a better way to release money for investment than tax rises or deficit spending.
Of course it is a complete myth with no basis in reality. All that happens is that the rich simply pocket the tax cut or it goes to companies shareholders, with little or nothing entering the economy.
It’s a largely barmy theory but all too many advocate it.
After graduating, Hilton joined Conservative Central Office, where he came to know David Cameron and Rachel Whetstone, his future wife and Global VP of Public Affairs and Communications for Google.[4] He liaised with the party’s favourite advertising firm, Saatchi and Saatchi, and w
as praised by Maurice Saatchi, who remarked
, “No one reminds me as much of me when young as Steve.”
[3] During this time Steve came up with the infamous “New Labour, New Danger” demon eyes poster campaign.[5]
If someone, with such a marked lack of public service as stevie, can complain about supply side problems in a dysfunctional economy in which his pals are organising around demand destruction, asset stripping ,rent seeking, elite decoupling, proliterian humiliation and wilful undercapcity, is considered a blue sky thinker.
I have to wonder what thinking is.
There are a considerable amount of EU regulations benefiting consumers, this government (and any other uk government) cannot arbitrarily rescind any of them. They also cannot replace them with their own laws if they offer less protection to the person or consumer. Unless they leave the EU. And Call-Me-Dave is a dedicated EU lover, as is Call-Me-Ed and Call-Me-Nick. It just makes me laugh…they are going to cut through the red tape holding business back….and the most expensive regulation (according to UK business leaders) are the Working Time Regulations (at 17 billion cost over ten years) which the UK government can not remove or alter…in fact the opt-out is highly likely to be itself removed soon…
Rather more interesting are the proposed GP commissioning units…..which a now retired ex-employee of the LHA told me are going to negotiate contracts with specific pharmacies…..I wonder which cheap drugs are going to be substituted for others….
Was my previous post deleted?
I didn’t know it was
It may just be I’ve been of line
It’s back now!! Weird!! 🙂
Here’s a typical example of the miserable anti human attitude to supply side thinking:
City chiefs say there may be interest from other businesses in taking over the enterprise, as the new owners will not be bound by any prior agreements on pay and conditions.