I have, for well over a decade, met Mark Littlewood, the director of the Institute for Economic Affairs, on a regular basis. That is because we have presented the Radio 2 budget commentary for a long time, rarely agreeing on almost anything.
Over the weekend, I noticed this:
What's he going to do, I wondered? The Guardian reminded me this morning:
Leave aside that Truss should not have a resignation honours list. The issue of concern is that it is known to include Mark Littlewood, and I am sure that he has not refused what has been offered to him.
There are some people whose appointment to the Lords can only reinforce the case for its abolition. Mark Littlewood is one of them.
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:
Agreed.
Littlewood and little of anything else of any use.
A waste of flesh and organs that man.
Liz Truss’s list look like an exercise to place lobbyists in Lords.
I totally agree with you, Richard.
Both this case, and the excellent article from Alan Simpson you shared today, are ample evidence for the fact that our politics is broken.
I really think that large numbers of our fellow citizens (or would I be more accurate to say “subjects”?) are going to experience ever ruder awakenings as we stumble into the future.
We are so far behind the curve with so many issues – political, economic and social, that our status as a first world country could be up for argument. Dysfunctional is too kind a term.
The tax take is at an all time high and i for one want that to lessen not increase.. and trust me that is shared by the majority
Except the evidence is very clear that if they got better services most people strongly disagree with you.
When you say that Tax is at an all-time high — You aren’t referring to money held off-shore …. or the money (wealthy) folk have made from property …. or the fact that National Insurance disproportionally falls on the lower earners … or the rates of taxation applied to fossil fuels ?? Maybe we need to be a lot more precise before calling for tax cuts (income tax, I presume?).
What is your preferred financial instrument to achieve Rish!’s levelling up agenda?
I, for one, would be perfectly happy to pay a lot more tax if that was required to ensure that the public services we depend on were properly funded and that employees in these services were generously remunerated.
Julian, taxes are not needed for funding. Or, indeed any national government expenditure. Taxes have other functions, set out by Ruml, for Instance.
And in The Joy of Tax
Many years ago I was asked if I would like to be considered for a peerage
Sometimes I regret not following it up as I can’t be worse than many of the current peers
In terms of a search for his successor, I know of a village with a spare idiot, I’m sure they would be happy to oblige.
On a related note, I see that George Osborne’s former right-hand man Rupert Harrison (remain-voting old Etonian and “gifted”? economist, once nicknamed the “real chancellor”) is standing for a safe tory seat. One wonders if he will campaign on the basis of “I helped Gidiot implement austerity and in doing so killed 120,000 people”.
I am afraid that my response to the title of this blog is “Does anyone?”
How about a system where if we don’t get better services from the higher tax take, then we get to reduce the overall tax take, ideally by getting rid of growth-inhibiting taxes first.
We would need a system to decide if we were getting better services, possibly elections.
The same could work in reverse. If you’re not happy with taking responsibility, then you can vote for more state provided free .
Radical I know
You do know that by definition there is no return to tax payment proportional to payment made?
No, very obviously you do not. It would be too much to ask a troll to know something relevant to the comment that they make.