So, let's see, which vested interests are going to be taken on? Not the unions, not the colleagues in Brussels, not the civil service (plenty of unions there); that leaves those pesky bankers who actually bring money into the country and provide a large part of the GDP. Way to go.
Monday, March 22, 2010
So much for taking on vested interests
The Boy-King's intention of making his party into the anti-establishment one that takes on vested interests for the country as a whole did not last long. Tim Montgomerie, who was so pleased with that development is a sadder and wiser man today, as he reports that CCHQ has confirmed the story in the Financial Times about the putative Conservative government continuing with subsidies modenization funds paid out to unions.
So, let's see, which vested interests are going to be taken on? Not the unions, not the colleagues in Brussels, not the civil service (plenty of unions there); that leaves those pesky bankers who actually bring money into the country and provide a large part of the GDP. Way to go.
So, let's see, which vested interests are going to be taken on? Not the unions, not the colleagues in Brussels, not the civil service (plenty of unions there); that leaves those pesky bankers who actually bring money into the country and provide a large part of the GDP. Way to go.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You don't think the banking sector needs to be reformed?
ReplyDeleteReformed, maybe. Taxed out of existence in this country is something else. Furthermore, a good deal of the trouble generated with the existing regulations. I certainly disagree with the bail-out - though Cameron didn't - but two wrongs do not make a right and slapping a tax on now will not correct that foolish decision. That leaves the unions, a far more dangerous group who will not be taken on by this bunch of so-called Conservatives.
ReplyDelete