OK Mr. Balls, if that\’s the way you want it

A £1bn scheme to encourage businesses to expand has been declared a \”total flop\” as it emerged it had cost more to run than it has delivered in additional growth.

Let\’s subject all government spending to this test shall we?

You buggers in Whitehall only get to spend money which you can prove will make us richer.

I have a feeling you\’re going to be scrubbing a good few hundred billion out of your proposed budgets which is just fine with me……

3 thoughts on “OK Mr. Balls, if that\’s the way you want it”

  1. How have the Telegraph managed to turn a GBP12m scheme into a GBP1bn scheme?

    If the idea is that total spending over 3-5 years was intended to be GBP1bn, but that it’s backloaded with low spending in the first year so we can tell whether or not the scheme works before spending serious money on it, then isn’t that a Good Thing? (as long as, now that it’s clear it doesn’t work, Gideon does indeed cancel it)

  2. Ah, but this is a tax cut you see, which by definition in no way boosts the economy, whereas if the State took all that money (the cost of running the scheme and the repayments) and p1ssed it up against any available wall, that would be ‘supporting the economy’.

    Its very simple you know, economic growth only occurs when the State spends money. If it leaves money in peoples pockets to spend as they wish, the economy may actually shrink. Far better to tax them highly and spend the money on 5 a day advisers.

  3. Ed Balls is claiming that the *actual* cost of running a small scheme is identical to the *forecast* cost of running a large scheme, predicated on the assumption that 240 civil servants would be working on it full-time. The current size would need 7 civil servants working on it full-time.
    Are the other 233 sitting around playing cards all day?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *