House Building Targets Scrapped... Grrrrr

From the BBC:-

Communities Secretary Eric Pickles said councils would now be given the freedom to make their own decisions, not be "bossed around" by central government.

So, presumably all those councils that the Conservatives' High Speed Rail line will be going through will now have the power to refuse to allow it? Or will the government still be bossing them around when it comes to that matter?

It will no longer be possible to concrete over large swathes of the country without any regard to what local people want.

Jesus. The Barker Report was to build on something like 1% of the flipping greenbelt. The people using the greenbelt for its required purpose (city dwellers having green spaces which was the whole point of the greenbelt) would hardly notice.

Good Column from India Knight

Well worth 10 minutes of your time...

here

From John Redwood's CGT Letter

26th May 2010:

The government has said it wishes to assist a substantial private sector led revival, and wants to see the enterprise sector create more jobs and homes for rent.

28th April 2010

The Conservatives have stated that if elected to government they will abolish regional planning quangos and the regional housing targets that require Wokingham to build on this scale. The Council would under these proposals be free to draw up a new local plan with less development in it. I would urge them to draw up such a plan keeping the sensitive greenfields adjacent to the existing settlement free of new building, and to take into account transport and flooding constraints on housing numbers.

So, John Redwood wants more homes for rent, just not in his back yard.

One of the reasons I supported centrally imposed regional housing targets is that no-one wants to have houses, nuclear power stations or sewage plants built in their back yard and left to local authorities, you'll get never get any of those built anywhere.

Funny Video

OK, in terms of the British economy it's a bit simplistic, but lots of good stuff about some of our neighbours...

Childish Gesture Politics

I'm probably going to be going against the grain on this one:-

£10m savings on cutting down on first-class travel and £5m from restricting ministerial cars and drivers and getting members of the government to walk, use public transport or a pooled car. David Laws, the chief secretary to the Treasury, is the first ditch the personal car and driver he is entitled to.

The first-class travel for MPs I broadly agree with, but I'm really not sure about restricting ministerial cars. The issue strikes me as ticking 2 boxes: the public who are angry about expenses and the eco nuttters.

Because whilst I like the idea of MPs remaining grounded, the fact is that most of us don't have a billion or more of spending under our control. Are we really to expect that when Michael Gove goes off to a school in Devizes that he'll take a tube across to Paddington, a train to Swindon and buy himself a Wiltshire Rover ticket and sit on the bus there?

It's daft penny-pinching which will save something close to piss all. Closing down the DCMS or DBERR would save far more money and do far more good.

Wanted: World's Smallest Violin

Mike Ockenden, Director General of AHIPP, comments on the Government’s decision to suspend HIPs with immediate effect:

"We are hugely disappointed to hear that Grant Shapps has reneged on his promise to review the packs before any other action was taken. Over 3,000 jobs will go and 10,000 will be affected as a result of the suspension of HIPs and £100million revenue will be lost to the Treasury in VAT receipts."

Silly Article From Peston About Business Cuts

From The BBC:-

Business leaders have been arguing passionately that the public sector needs to become more efficient. You'll recall that the equivalent of a plane-load of them publicly backed the Tories' general election campaign to make additional savings in public expenditure this year - in order to avoid that national-insurance rise they hate.

Well, it'll be interesting to see how they respond, now that their dreams have been made a reality.

Because a good proportion of the savings announced today will hit them directly.

So, for example, the Treasury has announced £1.15bn of cuts in discretionary spending by Whitehall on items like consultancy and travel.

Who receives the bulk of such largesse? Well, it's private-sector consultants and travel companies.

There'll also be £95m of IT savings - again a squeeze on monies handed over to private-sector contractors.

A further £1.7bn will be saved from delays and cancellations to contracts and projects - which is probably £1.7bn of revenue that won't be received by companies.

On top of all that, there are the reductions in funding for regional development agencies, which could have an effect on financial support received by many thousands of businesses.

In other words, the harsh reality of making government more efficient may not be quite so appealing as the theory to the many business leaders who sell goods and services to the public sector.

Is Peston an idiot, or just spinning a leftist line here about spending? We'll assume he's not doing that, seeing as how the BBC are so unbiased.

The businesses that signed that letter were the likes of Sainsburys, Diageo, Marks and Spencers, Easyjet and HMV. Their sales to the public sector are almost non-existent and is certainly outweighed by tax cuts and the resulting money being put into people's pockets.

Some other businesses are entirely agnostic about the state or the private sector. A friend of mine runs a software recruitment agency to both private and public sector. A cut in public sector means more spending in the private sector.

Then there are businesses that supply to the state that are entirely necessary. If you're in the heavy arms business, you aren't likely to see much difference as that government spending isn't going to be cut.

The types of businesses that will be affected are those who have attached themselves to the state. Either they supply something that government doesn't need and the private sector won't buy either (like contemporary art) or they are so wedded to government that they can't restructure quickly enough.

But "business" is neither in favour of less or more government. It's not about business, and being "pro business" is not better than being "pro state". It's markets that matter.