<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Cutting spending is easy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/04/06/cutting-spending-is-easy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/04/06/cutting-spending-is-easy/</link>
	<description>Incisive and topical campaigns and commentary on today&#039;s issues and tomorrow&#039;s problems</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 11:18:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: mikestallard</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/04/06/cutting-spending-is-easy/#comment-13826</link>
		<dc:creator>mikestallard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2009 08:36:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=3333#comment-13826</guid>
		<description>You are the first person to understand the importance of trimming the party system down!
Well done!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You are the first person to understand the importance of trimming the party system down!<br />
Well done!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adrian Peirson</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/04/06/cutting-spending-is-easy/#comment-13825</link>
		<dc:creator>Adrian Peirson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2009 04:49:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=3333#comment-13825</guid>
		<description>I promise not to Bleat on and on and on about Printing our own money instead of Borrowing it.

I&#039;ll let Senator Ron Paul Do it instead, he&#039;s much better at it than me anyway.

We need to stop Borrowing and spending ( on credit ), we need to get back to work building things with which we can trade with other nations, then we can have the flat screen tv and the holidays abroad.

There are no free lunches.

http://www.youtube.com/user/campaignforliberty</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I promise not to Bleat on and on and on about Printing our own money instead of Borrowing it.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ll let Senator Ron Paul Do it instead, he&#8217;s much better at it than me anyway.</p>
<p>We need to stop Borrowing and spending ( on credit ), we need to get back to work building things with which we can trade with other nations, then we can have the flat screen tv and the holidays abroad.</p>
<p>There are no free lunches.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/campaignforliberty" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/user/campaignforliberty</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Denis Cooper</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/04/06/cutting-spending-is-easy/#comment-13824</link>
		<dc:creator>Denis Cooper</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2009 13:11:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=3333#comment-13824</guid>
		<description>Adam, the State does indeed &quot;gobble up private sector resources&quot;, but it then excretes them, manuring the private sector and in that sense promoting its growth.

It&#039;s often the wrong kind of growth; but those who calculate the GDP statistic make no distinction between productive, unproductive and counter-productive activities - provided money changes hands, and the transaction is included in some statistical report, then it&#039;s treated as a contribution to the overall economy.

Some people have the wrong mental picture of the part played by the State in the UK economy, seeing it as a kind of black hole which sucks in money and destroys it, or perhaps rather more prosaically visualising civil servants extorting bundles of banknotes from taxpayers and then burning them in a furnace.

That&#039;s not the case at all. Apart from a relatively small fraction sent abroad, all of the money that flows into State coffers from the private sector flows out again, back into the private sector.

Which is why it would be misleading to say that the State &quot;consumes&quot; about 40% of everything which is produced in the country, but correct to say that about 40% of the money flows in the economy now pass through the State coffers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Adam, the State does indeed &#8220;gobble up private sector resources&#8221;, but it then excretes them, manuring the private sector and in that sense promoting its growth.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s often the wrong kind of growth; but those who calculate the GDP statistic make no distinction between productive, unproductive and counter-productive activities &#8211; provided money changes hands, and the transaction is included in some statistical report, then it&#8217;s treated as a contribution to the overall economy.</p>
<p>Some people have the wrong mental picture of the part played by the State in the UK economy, seeing it as a kind of black hole which sucks in money and destroys it, or perhaps rather more prosaically visualising civil servants extorting bundles of banknotes from taxpayers and then burning them in a furnace.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s not the case at all. Apart from a relatively small fraction sent abroad, all of the money that flows into State coffers from the private sector flows out again, back into the private sector.</p>
<p>Which is why it would be misleading to say that the State &#8220;consumes&#8221; about 40% of everything which is produced in the country, but correct to say that about 40% of the money flows in the economy now pass through the State coffers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rare Breed</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/04/06/cutting-spending-is-easy/#comment-13823</link>
		<dc:creator>Rare Breed</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2009 12:55:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=3333#comment-13823</guid>
		<description>What about the contracts of employment in the banks?

They should have just let them die.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What about the contracts of employment in the banks?</p>
<p>They should have just let them die.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: THE ESSEX BOYS</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/04/06/cutting-spending-is-easy/#comment-13822</link>
		<dc:creator>THE ESSEX BOYS</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2009 12:05:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=3333#comment-13822</guid>
		<description>OINK OIK!

BREAKING NEWS...

The whereabouts of the former Royal Bank of Scotland chief executive Sir Fred Goodwin, the most wanted man in Britain - by hungry paparazzi, angry shareholders and disillusioned taxpayers - has been a mystery since he vanished from his Edinburgh home a month ago amid the furore over his £700,000-a-year pension. As one shareholder put it at a meeting last week, after Goodwin refused to give up any of his pension, which will now have to be met from the public purse: &quot;He&#039;s the biggest benefits scrounger in the country.&quot;

But his vanishing act may be short-lived: word reaches The First Post that Goodwin is holed up in Switzerland at the home on Lake Geneva of the former F1 racing champion, Sir Jackie Stewart.

These digs would make sense: Stewart is paid £1 million a year to be a &quot;global ambassador&quot; for RBS, a nice little earner he was given by Sir Fred before his downfall. (He is one of a number of sports personalities including tennis player Andy Murray and the Queen&#039;s horse-riding grand-daughter Zara Phillips to be taken on by Goodwin as part of a &quot;sponsorship binge&quot;, as it was later described by critics.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OINK OIK!</p>
<p>BREAKING NEWS&#8230;</p>
<p>The whereabouts of the former Royal Bank of Scotland chief executive Sir Fred Goodwin, the most wanted man in Britain &#8211; by hungry paparazzi, angry shareholders and disillusioned taxpayers &#8211; has been a mystery since he vanished from his Edinburgh home a month ago amid the furore over his £700,000-a-year pension. As one shareholder put it at a meeting last week, after Goodwin refused to give up any of his pension, which will now have to be met from the public purse: &#8220;He&#8217;s the biggest benefits scrounger in the country.&#8221;</p>
<p>But his vanishing act may be short-lived: word reaches The First Post that Goodwin is holed up in Switzerland at the home on Lake Geneva of the former F1 racing champion, Sir Jackie Stewart.</p>
<p>These digs would make sense: Stewart is paid £1 million a year to be a &#8220;global ambassador&#8221; for RBS, a nice little earner he was given by Sir Fred before his downfall. (He is one of a number of sports personalities including tennis player Andy Murray and the Queen&#8217;s horse-riding grand-daughter Zara Phillips to be taken on by Goodwin as part of a &#8220;sponsorship binge&#8221;, as it was later described by critics.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Martin Cole</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/04/06/cutting-spending-is-easy/#comment-13821</link>
		<dc:creator>Martin Cole</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2009 11:35:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=3333#comment-13821</guid>
		<description>I have posted an e-mail sent to the BBC (including the quoted odd cost of the EU at 55, 775 billion, perhaps it is a continental decimal) about yesterday&#039;s radio broadcast where no mention of cuts in EU costs were apparently even mentioned.

Can you clarify why you allowed this to pass and also advise whether you believe any EU cuts can only be negotiated among the 27?

Reply: I want a renegotiation of the UK&#039;s position as I think the EU spends and wastes too much. I have made this clear endless times.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have posted an e-mail sent to the BBC (including the quoted odd cost of the EU at 55, 775 billion, perhaps it is a continental decimal) about yesterday&#8217;s radio broadcast where no mention of cuts in EU costs were apparently even mentioned.</p>
<p>Can you clarify why you allowed this to pass and also advise whether you believe any EU cuts can only be negotiated among the 27?</p>
<p>Reply: I want a renegotiation of the UK&#8217;s position as I think the EU spends and wastes too much. I have made this clear endless times.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Denis Cooper</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/04/06/cutting-spending-is-easy/#comment-13820</link>
		<dc:creator>Denis Cooper</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2009 11:27:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=3333#comment-13820</guid>
		<description>Secret voting would destroy the power of the whips, but it would also make it impossible for an MP&#039;s constituents to know how their representative had voted.

We&#039;d be drifting back to the days when it was deemed unlawful to report debates in Parliament:

http://www.historyhome.co.uk/c-eight/people/wilkes.htm

&quot;His argument was that MPs could hardly claim to represent the people if the people did not know what was going on in parliament. MPs said that Wilkes&#039; activities were a breach of parliamentary privilege ... &quot;

I believe that a more direct attack on the whipping system would be for Parliament to agree that some of the laws which apply outside Parliament will also apply inside  Parliament, notwithstanding the protection of Parliamentary privilege enshrined in Article IX of the 1689 Bill of Rights.

If anybody in the wider world behaved like the Parliamentary whips, they would probably end up in a criminal court or at least before an employment tribunal.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Secret voting would destroy the power of the whips, but it would also make it impossible for an MP&#8217;s constituents to know how their representative had voted.</p>
<p>We&#8217;d be drifting back to the days when it was deemed unlawful to report debates in Parliament:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.historyhome.co.uk/c-eight/people/wilkes.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.historyhome.co.uk/c-eight/people/wilkes.htm</a></p>
<p>&#8220;His argument was that MPs could hardly claim to represent the people if the people did not know what was going on in parliament. MPs said that Wilkes&#8217; activities were a breach of parliamentary privilege &#8230; &#8221;</p>
<p>I believe that a more direct attack on the whipping system would be for Parliament to agree that some of the laws which apply outside Parliament will also apply inside  Parliament, notwithstanding the protection of Parliamentary privilege enshrined in Article IX of the 1689 Bill of Rights.</p>
<p>If anybody in the wider world behaved like the Parliamentary whips, they would probably end up in a criminal court or at least before an employment tribunal.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rob</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/04/06/cutting-spending-is-easy/#comment-13819</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2009 11:07:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=3333#comment-13819</guid>
		<description>For what its worth, John, I always recommend your blog.  It does do something to restore my faith in Tory vision and competence (as does Dan Hannan).

And yes, David Davis should blog.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For what its worth, John, I always recommend your blog.  It does do something to restore my faith in Tory vision and competence (as does Dan Hannan).</p>
<p>And yes, David Davis should blog.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Neil Craig</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/04/06/cutting-spending-is-easy/#comment-13818</link>
		<dc:creator>Neil Craig</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2009 09:31:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=3333#comment-13818</guid>
		<description>The things I would say are &quot;windmill subsidies&quot;, &quot;public sector overmanning&quot;, &quot;quangos&quot; (which iI admit is similar to fat cats), &quot;small &amp; over complicated subsidies&quot;, &amp; &quot;decisions made for political rather than economic reasons&quot;.  In particular I incline to Digby Jones&#039; advice that it could run better with half as many  civil servants.

That would get us out of recession. To get into fast frowth all we need is to cut the refulations that bring the government share in the economy up to 75%.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The things I would say are &#8220;windmill subsidies&#8221;, &#8220;public sector overmanning&#8221;, &#8220;quangos&#8221; (which iI admit is similar to fat cats), &#8220;small &amp; over complicated subsidies&#8221;, &amp; &#8220;decisions made for political rather than economic reasons&#8221;.  In particular I incline to Digby Jones&#8217; advice that it could run better with half as many  civil servants.</p>
<p>That would get us out of recession. To get into fast frowth all we need is to cut the refulations that bring the government share in the economy up to 75%.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mikestallard</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/04/06/cutting-spending-is-easy/#comment-13817</link>
		<dc:creator>mikestallard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2009 08:20:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=3333#comment-13817</guid>
		<description>David Davis is, to my mind, making the mistake of not blogging. But his website is good:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>David Davis is, to my mind, making the mistake of not blogging. But his website is good:<br />
<a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.theyworkforyou.com/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

