We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Budget proposal of February 3900
Details
Submitted by[?]: Borgerlig-Demokratiske Union
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill proposes to change the allocation of funds in the budget. It requires more than half of the legislature to vote yes. This bill will pass as soon as the required yes votes are in, or will be defeated if unsufficient votes are reached on the deadline.
Voting deadline: June 3901
Description[?]:
| Mr Speaker, this budget will serve as a first important stept wowards the consolidation of our Finances. The deficit will be cut almost in half, and there will be modest reductions in spending in areas where we believe that the state has grown too big and where too much waste, in particular by growing the welfare state beyond its purpose on providing a safety net for the poor or by nationalizing sectors that can be operated more productively and efficiently by the private sector, has accumulated. We are confident that the resources released by this cuts can be refunneled into the private sector where they will be allocated not according to political and tactical motives, but according to rational abidance to market indicators which express the people's preferences through the factors of supply and demand. Of course, much more needs to be done. The deficit must be eliminated completely in the near future if we wish to prevent the next generation from having to pay for the mistakes of 38th century governments. There has to be an open conversation about the welfare state where concerned voices raising questions about the sustainability of our current free-for-all system are not shouted down as oppressors of the working class, heartless corporate shills, or, which I find most astounding, apologists of class warfare, as the Leader of the Opposition has recently suggested because we proposed cutting subsidies for the rich, which she considers an expression of solidarity. However, Mr Speaker, this government remains convinced that taxing people to transfer their money to politicians just to give some of it back to them with large bureaucratic effort at a later point is not a charitable act, but a wasteful trickery which only serves the interests of government members wishing to portray themselves as philanthropists. Finally, let this budget serve as the starting point for even greater reform not only with regards to how much the state spends, but also in the area of taxation. People wishing to keep more of their income is not greed, but a legitimate desire to decide themselves how they wish to utilize the fruits of their work. It cannot be denied that the government operates a wide variety of services which are crucial to a well-functioning, prospering and modern society - but it is a fallacy that these institutions will cease to exist once the state does not monopolize them. Let me cite a great liberal philosopher and economist who I have studied and drawn a great deal of inspiration from: "(...) every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all." Nothing could be further from the truth, though: if the people want health care, education, and infrastructure, then giving them more choices through private sector involvement one the one hand and more of their own money on the other hand to pay for them is a fundamentally sound vision. Of course, we must make sure that we do not lose sight of the poor in this context, but even they can be expected to be better off in a more diversified and competitive economy where they are identified as customers and not just as recipients of welfare cheques. Thus I ask the Storting to vote in favor of this bill as a first step towards a comprehensive reform agenda of economy and state, which shall bring about a brighter future for every Kazulian citizen. Prof. Hans Granlund (FV) Finance Minister OOC: Here are the most important figures of the budget: The deficit is cut by roughly 44%. - 45% of cuts will be made in the area of trade and industry due to privatization and less state involvement - 15% in Infrastructure for the very same reason - 10% in Health and Social Services, as the government wants to cut welfare for the rich - 5% in Finance due to less bureaucracy and (prospectively) lower taxes - 5% in Agriculture, possibly through small subsidy cuts or due to forest privatization - 5% in Environment and Tourism due to less regulation - 7,5% in Foreign Affairs, perhaps through less foreign aid or simply because Kazulia doesn't do much anyways - 7,5% in Internal Affairs, mostly red tape and less government officials Overall, spending is reduced by around 4%. |
Proposals
Article 1
| Ministry | Current Budget | Old Budget | Propesed Budget |
| Head of Government | 499,000,000 KKR | 400,000,000 KKR | 400,000,000 KKR |
| Foreign Affairs | 14,534,000,000 KKR | 15,000,000,000 KKR | 12,738,575,460 KKR |
| Internal Affairs | 21,334,000,000 KKR | 25,000,000,000 KKR | 22,738,575,460 KKR |
| Finance | 5,395,000,000 KKR | 15,000,000,000 KKR | 13,492,383,640 KKR |
| Defence | 82,678,000,000 KKR | 50,000,000,000 KKR | 50,000,000,000 KKR |
| Justice | 22,731,000,000 KKR | 50,000,000,000 KKR | 50,000,000,000 KKR |
| Infrastructure and Transport | 140,000,000,000 KKR | 100,000,000,000 KKR | 95,477,150,920 KKR |
| Health and Social Services | 1,291,060,000 KKR | 180,000,000,000 KKR | 176,984,767,280 KKR |
| Education and Culture | 1,090,050,000 KKR | 150,000,000,000 KKR | 150,000,000,000 KKR |
| Science and Technology | 37,436,000,000 KKR | 50,000,000,000 KKR | 50,000,000,000 KKR |
| Food and Agriculture | 11,433,000,000 KKR | 30,000,000,000 KKR | 28,492,383,640 KKR |
| Environment and Tourism | 307,110,000 KKR | 30,000,000,000 KKR | 28,492,383,640 KKR |
| Trade and Industry | 26,656,000,000 KKR | 30,000,000,000 KKR | 16,431,452,758 KKR |
| Total | 365,384,220,000 KKR | 725,400,000,000 KKR | 695,247,672,798 KKR |
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 01:24:10, September 01, 2015 CET | From | Arbeiderpartiet (Labour Party) | To | Debating the Budget proposal of February 3900 |
| Message | I'm not sure how lower taxes equates to lower finance spending. Unless you anticipate savings in the tax collection department. |
| Date | 08:18:48, September 01, 2015 CET | From | Borgerlig-Demokratiske Union | To | Debating the Budget proposal of February 3900 |
| Message | OOC: Yes, that's basically the logic behind it. |
| Date | 16:03:22, September 01, 2015 CET | From | Folkepartiet (People's Party) | To | Debating the Budget proposal of February 3900 |
| Message | Foreign aid is a point of principle (Hosian charity) for Folkepartiet, so they wouldn't be happy if the Foreign savings were achieved there. |
| Date | 20:07:34, September 01, 2015 CET | From | Borgerlig-Demokratiske Union | To | Debating the Budget proposal of February 3900 |
| Message | OOC: We can RP it in a different way then. |
| Date | 05:44:00, September 02, 2015 CET | From | Arbeiderpartiet (Labour Party) | To | Debating the Budget proposal of February 3900 |
| Message | Mr Speaker, At the close of his speech, the Minister of Finance told the house that the most disadvantaged should be "identified as customers and not just as recipients of welfare cheques". It is a very noble sentiment, and it would certainly be very nice if that was possible at this time, but the reality is that this government's social vandalism means that the future of the disadvanted, and the future of those who are not yet disadvantaged, is very bleak indeed. They will have to live in constant fear of the Minister's axe falling on them in the name of right-wing shibboleths like "the consolidation of our finances" and "rational abidance to market indicators", and only the Minister's actions, not his spin and obfuscation, will ever give them reassurance. We know, of course, that this is not a government that is likely to give such assurance. What did we hear today from the Minister? We were told that it was time to have resources "funnelled into the private sector" where they will be allocated properly "through the factors of supply and demand", but we know what he means by that. He means savage cuts, cuts to the bone, cuts amounting to an extraordinary 45% of curent spending, to industrial subsidies and agricultural subsidies. He means that businesses that cannot produce a return for shareholders are of no value in our society, and if their workers and farmers lose their jobs, lose their houses or their farmers, lose their financial security, cannot provide for their families, that is of little concern to him, because corporate profits are all that matter. Because "efficieny" is all that matters. Because the remote, impersonal mechanism of the market, which does not take into account basic human dignity or equity, is inviolable. These cult-like radical-right absurdies raise the question, Mr Speaker, of how a government which claims to stand for getting people off welfare and into employment can justify so absurd a policy. How can the government of work justify destroying thousands of jobs? How can the government of consumers - "not just... recipients of welfare cheques" - justify a policy which will deny so many the opportunity to consume the goods and services that they want? The contradictions in the policies of this government are as grotesque and as abhorrent as their sheer cruelty. The Minister objects to being called a "heartless corporate shill". Perhaps, then, he should consider not acting like one for a change. It was no surprise that we heard all the well-practiced excuses trotted out by the market fundamentalists whenever they are pressed on issues of economic policy, but it is clear to all who are not blinkered by the ludicrous ideology of members opposite, that the private sector does not produce a distribution of income which is remotely fair, and nor does it serve the interests of the vast majority of Kazulians, who are not wealthy and who do depend on some form of government intervention to protect their interests. Government intervention which no longer takes place, given the introduction of new industrial relations laws that strip away much of the right to strike. There is a pattern of behaviour here on the part of this government, Mr Speaker, that the Kazulian people haven't missed. Once can only speculate with horror as to how much worse it would have been had the first Labour government not banned companies from rigging democracy through massive political donations. The Minister also proposes cuts to infrastructure investment and environmental protection. Not only will these cuts have the same job-destroying impact as the other cuts on the table tonight, they will also undermine our long-term future. We do not share his blind faith in the market. We know that it does not make sense for the private sector to build roads unless this government proposes to let them shut them off to everyone except those who pay tolls, which would be yet another kick to the guts to the disadvantaged in our community by a government for which that seems to be a pastime. The future of infrastructure is the future of mobility in our country, and it is imperative that we invest in it. Nor does the private sector have any interest in not exploiting our natural resources to the full, depleting them and trashing the environment. There is a role for government here to correct for the inherent failings of the market. But not to members opposite, who believe that the market should rule supreme, and if we deny our descendants the experience of our beautiful countryside, and if we deny to them a liveable planet, well, that's a problem for them to deal with. So much, then, for the Minister's sanctimony about "prevent[ing] the next generation from having to pay for the mistakes of 38th century governments". That would be his government, Mr Speaker. Then we were told, Mr Speaker, that the government would take an axe to welfare. He thinks that it's nothing more than "wasteful trickery", which goes even further to reveal his mentality than his infamous comments about ten years ago about "political prestige projects". But don't worry, the Minister says, because it's not your welfare that we're after, it's the welfare that the wealthy receive. We on this side of the house believe that the more fortunate among us should make a commensurate contribution to the welfare of the rest of society, but never would we indulge in this sort of cynical and divisive conduct, in this sort of "class warfare", dare I say. Once again the Minister objects to being described in such terms, so I say to him that his policies speak louder than anything that he and I can say in this house, and it is his policies that stand condemned by the people of Kazulia tonight. Moreover, by bringing an end to the universality of the welfare system, what this government seeks to achieve is to undermine our tradition of having a strong welfare state. It is to undermine our tradition of solidarity and unity as a national community. And frankly, I wouldn't be surprised that when once that is accomplished, the cuts will go beyond those that the Minister has announced tonight. Indeed we all know the Minister will not be around forever, and that his deputy, for all her evasions and her non-answers, is after his job- [Ms Nordahl injected] [Speaker: Order. The hon. lady will cease interjecting.] Thank you, Mr Speaker. The hon. lady can shout as much and as loudly as she wants, but it is obvious to all that she is after his job, and we know that her coldness, her cruelty, her contempt for the welfare of the most vulnerable in our society, her unshakeable market fundamentalist zeal, far exceeds that which we have seen tonight, and once she is in that job the cuts will come, and they will cut even deeper than those that the Minister has authorised in this years' budget. These cuts, dressed up in the language of fiscal responsibility and the language of "sustainability" - they have no such enthusiasm for environmental sustainability, mind you - these cuts are just the thin end of the wedge. And even the Minister has hinted darkly at this tonight: this budget is "a first step towards a comprehensive reform agenda of economy and state". And it's not just welfare that the Minister proposes to cut. Education spending has been maintained only through the determined opposition of the Labour Party and because of the uproar in the community- [Hon members: Hear, hear!] And we are proud of the role we played. Education is the key to the future of our country, and Labour will always stand up for education, not because it's been forced to as this government has been, but because it believes in education. Let me take this opportunity to address one of the more absurd comments made by the Minister in his speech tonight, Mr Speaker. He said, quoting one of the apostles of market fundamentalism, that "every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all". So there we have it: as I said, he would have cut it if he could get away with it. He would probably have carved a great hole in healthcare spending too. But the simple fact is that not everyone is as lucky as the Minister. Not everyone earns as high a salary. There are some people in our community who simply cannot afford good education and healthcare, and some who cannot afford it at all. The Minister can say that he doesn't object in principle to education and healthcare, and we hope that is the case, but what does it matter whether or not he object to it in principle when thousands if not millions across this country would be shut out, left sick and uneducated, by the failure of government to provide adequately for these vital public services? Labour will not stand for two-tier public services - not now, not ever. Nonetheless we are grateful that the Minister hasn't gotten around to savaging health and education this time round. But the internal affairs budget has not been so lucky. In the budget papers it says that these savings will come from "fewer government officials". What that really means is that security will be cut. There will be fewer police officers, and those that remain will have their morale destroyed by the sight of their colleagues being made redundant despite their dedicated service. Kazulia will become a more dangerous and less pleasant country to live in, all because of this one Minister and his friends on the radical right who think that their obsession with austerity should be allowed to come before the welfare of the Kazulians who they are meant to serve. And what does the Minister seek to actually achieve through these cuts? We heard nothing, only some vague waffle about the "consolidation of our finances". Yet as someone who claims to be acquainted with economics, he should know that there is nothing wrong with providing support to demand in the economy, which actually increases economic growth. Of course, it would not come as much of a shock if tomes of economic knowledge have been swept under the carpet during the writing of this budget so that the Minister doesn't need to confront the fact that his blinkered ideology and reality don't have very much in common. Nor is it something shameful, something unwise, to invest in the future of this country through borrowing if necessary. It is all about the bottom line for the Minister of Finance. That is how the budget should be, and that is how the economy and society should be. Equity, social justice, dignity - that's only for bleeding hearts. The reality is, this budget is all pain with no gain. It is a budget which tears at the seams of our community, seeking to divide people on the basis of class and wealth. It is a budget that slashes investment and thus impoverishes our future. And more immediately, it is a budget that will rob thousands of Kazulians of their jobs and their quality of life. The Minister can dress this budget up in his language about fiscal responsibility and the greatness of the market, but we know that in the service of his ideology he will have no compunction in putting together a budget that is divisive, heartless and socially destructive - in other words, the document presented to the house tonight. And most cruelly of all, this budget is just "a first step". Those around this country dismayed by this budget will have to tighten their belts a little more, year by year, as the proceeds of growth get siphoned off and handed over to the most fortunate in society, until they can tighten their belts no more. The pain, the trauma, the coldness of this budget are merely tastes of what will come in the future. The Minister of Finance has a bleak vision of Kazulia, and it is a vision that the Labour Party, like the people of Kazulia, reject absolutely. And the hon. lady who sits beside him [Ms Nordahl], plotting to take his job despite her public protestations of innocence - her vision of Kazulia is bleaker still, and that is the vision, the "fundamentally sound vision", that you will get if this appalling government is re-elected. If this government gets a second term, you will get a vision of a Kazulia where public services have shrivelled into a shadow of their former serves, where a two-tier education system creates rampant and widening inequality in both opportunity and outcome, and where the social safety net has such enormous holes in it that it might as well not exist. You will get a Kazulia where the market determines who gets what without heed to equity, where the inherent worth of every human being is an irrelevance at best and an obstacle to corporate profits at worse, and where fairness and social justice are nowhere to be seen. It is not a Kazulia that I want to live in. I know, and it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge, that even on the government benches there are people of conscience, people who believe in solidarity and charity, whether it is Hosian charity or a secular version of charity. I say to them, Mr Speaker, vote according to your consciences, not according to the instructions of the party whip. This is not a budget that deserves your support. I say to the members of the Folkpariet, your founding creed is one that seeks to "bring Hosian-inspired politics to the heart of our nation... grounded in solidarity, stewardship and justice for all". I say to the members of Fremskritt, your creed is "social justice, equal opportunity... and fairness", and you claim to "stand by working families". By your participation in this vicious governments of division and cuts, you have traduced those creeds, but it is not too late to say, no more. It is time to stand up for working families, and to stand up for the vulnerable and the dispossessed. Tonight, in voting no to this disgraceful budget, by standing against a government that is not on the side of ordinary Kazulians, that is what the Labour Party proposes to do. Elise Larsen Leader of the Opposition |
| Date | 06:39:00, September 02, 2015 CET | From | Kazuliansk Bondepartiet | To | Debating the Budget proposal of February 3900 |
| Message | Mr Speaker, The KBP strongly opposes the unbearable cuts to the Department of Agriculture which negatively impact the lives of millions of rural families and should only lead to higher food prices for all. Cuts to the Interior Ministry will reduce our citizens' safety. We do like the cuts to foreign aid, Kazulia must look after her own first but considering the agriculture and policing cuts, we cannot support this Budget nor the bourgeois alliance if it is bent on torturing rural communities like this. Trond Norvik KBP Finance Spokesman |
| Date | 12:29:31, September 02, 2015 CET | From | Venstre | To | Debating the Budget proposal of February 3900 |
| Message | Though Venstre sympathizes with the general desire for retrenchment in the interest of diminishing borrowing, we cannot, with a clear conscience, support cuts in environmental protection nor for rural communities. Öyvind Fallerum Venstre's economics spokesman |
| Date | 14:33:33, September 02, 2015 CET | From | Borgerlig-Demokratiske Union | To | Debating the Budget proposal of February 3900 |
| Message | Mr Speaker, I stand by this budget unwavering, and I wish to apologize for only one thing: that I once thought of the Leader of the Opposition as a constructive voice. I was wrong. What we have heard from her tonight amounts to a staccato of falsehoods, hysterical scare-mongering, economic fallacies and, most of all, close-to-personal attacks on the character of me and my colleagues, who she is again portraying as "radicals", "fundamentalists" with a "cruel" and "heartless" agenda. And all this in the face of a very modest 4% budget cut, coming after her predecessor recklessly racked up spending by much more more than that, namely 16%. She can twist the numbers as much as she likes, including her nonsensical claim that we are implementing "cuts amounting to an extraordinary 45% of curent spending", but in the end it remains clear that our budget is a moderate one in line with a gradual reform agenda that takes the Kazulian people along gently and considerately. Unless Labour, we will ask for a second mandate for even bigger reform, unless Labour, we do not think that we are allowed to conduct a comprehensive change of system in just one term without asking the people for permission. Labour implemented socialism with the smallest of mandates, passing the most extremist of laws this country has seen in decades, including large-scale nationalization, which ruined the lives of many people by taking away a life's work with the stroke of a pen, handing it over to people who wave never lifted a finger in a real private sector job. I call that cruel, not our determination to end the criminalization of ambition, to give the people back what was stolen by Labour at the command of its union overlords, to release the creative and entrepreneurial spirit from the shackles of the state, and to give people a purpose in life againn after they were confined to working in minor industry or subsidized sectors for years because everything else was monopolized by the state. Under our government, people will no longer be seen as small wheels in a state-decreed "national community" dominated by special interests of organized labour, but as individuals with personal ambitions, plans and desires, which they can never realize if their is only one single, state-approved option in the area of economics, health, education, media, infrastructure, agriculture and the other fields of policy where Labour has stamped out every trace of comepetition and choice. Let me also point out how utterly absurd the Hon. Lady's portrayal of this government as a bunch of radicals and far-right ideologues chasing after "ideological shibboleths" is: it was said that after its disastrous experience with my predecessor in this office as leader, Labour would reflect on its mistakes and abandon its doctrinaire stances or even its hysterical, shrill-voiced, strident way of confronting its opponents. It is clear that they did not now, for they cannot even cope with the prospect of a 4% cut in public spending, even though she recently said in the Storting that "the Labour Party does not in principle object to reducing the budget deficit per se". Now it is clear that they do indeed, for they apparently believe that the apocalypse is just around the corner if we shrink the size of the state even by one iota. Labour is the party of narrow-minded, stubborn structural conservatism, they have built a religion around the state where each new bureucrat, each new penny brought in by taxation and each new layer of red tape is a step towards salvation. At the same time, they have identified the market as their anathema. What is the market, however? Labour would have us believe that it is a tool, an instrument, an invention of the upper classes to impose their will on the omasses and to institutionalize the exploitation of their work. This, however, is an unscientific view, one that can be held only by people whose only knowledge about economics comes from reading Karlstein Metz's ramblings, who have been thoroughly discredited over and over again, yet the empirical evidence available is deliberately omitted by them when they try to lecture us (!) about economics. Let me tell this house what the market really is: a place where people exchange goods and services according to their own preferences and priorities, voluntarily, without coercion, each individual autonomously, without a higher authority intervening and claiming to know it all better. It is the incorporation of the fundamental principle of liberty which serves as the foundation for a free society, something that Labour wishes to prevent from emerging at all costs. In contrast, what is statism, the core idea of socialism? Clearly, it is... [Ms Leya Nordahl injects: Statism is the believe that a bunch of idiots who have driven this country millions into debt know better how to run your life than you do yourself.] Speaker: The hon. Lady will withdraw her comment or leave the chamber. Ms. Nordahl: I withdraw. It was billions. Speaker: This house does not tolerate this kind of mockery. I ask the hon. Lady to leave the chamber. Granlund: It was sixty-nine billions in debt, to be precise. All of this will be paid by our children if we do not take action now. Mrs Larsen's policy resembles that of a bill-dodger, she believes that all will be fine because someone else will pay. Apparently the next generation is excluded from her oh-so-glorious, pompous vision of "solidarity" and "national community". Condemning those who have not yet been born to a lifetime of debt slavery is not a policy that she or indeed anyonce can be proud of, it is irresponsible, as she and the members opposite will be long gone when our children will face the long-term consequences of her disastrous policies - a convenient solution to avoid being made accountable. I am in my mid-eighties now, and I still feel that it is my duty as a politician and a liberal, but most of all as a father, to repair the mistakes my generation has committed. I could lay back in my rocking chair now, not giving a damn about politics, or I could dwell on the opposition benches, screaming and shouting and complaining and demanding more of the same old failed socialist policies in order to postpone the date when our country has to file for insolvency. But I believe that it is the right thing to do to take action now, to make tough decisions, and to acknowledge that our country got it wrong. The hon. Lady, in contrast, advises us to return to the Sæterbø doctrine in jolly delusion, as if nothing else had happened. The party is not yet over, she says, we can have another shot and will still be able to drive. Indeed, she says that more of the addictive substance with which her party has intoxicated the economy will stimulate our well-being! State spending is good for the economy, she suggests, and we can never have enough of it! Prepare your wallets, citizens, for Labour is already preparing to put their grubby little hands back on them. The truth is, Mr Speaker, that we cannot consume what we have not already produced! Demand alone will never create prosperity or growth, and if it does, then it will be unsustainable growth resulting in bubbles and crashes for which Labour will blame capitalism in order to save their face. We must shift the focus on production, and we must incentivize the market to increase output, driving down prices and making more goods available to the market, and a greater range of goods too from which people can choose according to their individual preferences. Efficiency is a word that might be demonized by Labour, but it is the key to prosperity and success. Labour is concerned that the market will produce inequalities, but we already live in a highly unequal society where bureaucrats, union bosses and state employees enjoy vast amounts of privilege while all burdens are shifted on those who work in the private sector or run their own businesses, having to endure verbal abuse from Labour members each and every day. Farmers, they say, will destroy the environment if they are allowed to work their lands without government oversight, and businessmen will exploit their workers if they are not subject to the dictates of union bosses. Labour is a misanthropic party indeed, seeing struggle and warfare where there is only voluntary co-operation and free exchange on the marketplace. This government puts its trust into the people and not just the state, and that is the rationale behind our budget. Last of all, let me point out that this government does not hide its future plans. Yes, we are prepared to cut more, but we will ask for a mandate. Yes, we will cut taxes, and we will ask for a mandate for this as well. Yes, we will shrink the size of the state, and we will ask the people to join us on our path to prosperity. With regards to education, we are not sparing the budget because we follow Labour's lead, but because we will use the funds for introducing a system of school choice where people are no longer trapped in failed state schools which do not share the values according to which they would like to have their children educated. The Hon. Lady implies that we are afraid to face the people with these plans, but we are not. Labour's scare-mongering did not work last time, and it will fail again this autumn when we head to the polls again. I have nothing more to say to the Hon. Lady, and refer her to the government's budget report for any further question. She can get her maths right there if she discovers any more shortcomings or gaps in knowledge on her part. She has some work ahead in this respect, I assume, and I wish her all the best in mastering the daunting task of overcoming her appalling ignorance and abysmal grasp of economic issues. At the same time, I wish to announce to this house my intention of standing down at the next election. I will no longer stand as a deputy for my constituency and will not be available for another term as Finance Minister. It was a pleasure to serve, and I hope that, if for anything, I will be remembered as the person who help bring about a change of mind and laid the foundation for a consolidation of finances that will mark the starting point for a period of prosperity and at the same time the demise of Kazulian socialism, which has done nothing but stealing from the people, subjugating them to the unions and stripping them of control over their own lives. I thank this house for listening to my speeches, I thank my coalition partners for their support, and I thank all members of this house who share a constructive outlook on policy-making and whose hard work makes up the greatness of this house. I also thank you, Mr Speaker, for keeping debate civil and keeping a watchful eye on the proceedings of this chamber. I yield. Prof. Hans Granlund (FV) Minister of Finance |
| Date | 23:33:13, September 02, 2015 CET | From | Arbeiderpartiet (Labour Party) | To | Debating the Budget proposal of February 3900 |
| Message | OOC: "I once thought of the Leader of the Opposition as a constructive voice." I think that you are confusing her with our finance spokesperson. |
| Date | 01:10:34, September 03, 2015 CET | From | Arbeiderpartiet (Labour Party) | To | Debating the Budget proposal of February 3900 |
| Message | Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak on this issue. As you know, my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition has already responded to the budget, and I want to begin by congratulating her for a magnificent speech which, I think, is an expression of her deep passion for the welfare of the ordinary people of Kazulia. Let me also say to the Minister of Finance that notwithstanding our differences, we do wish him all the best as he moves on to the next stage of his life. For a man of reputation and respect in his academic profession to move into the bearpit of politics takes a special courage and a special commitment, and I think that people of all political stripes can admire that. Nevertheless, I'd like to take this opportunity to clear up a number of misconceptions held by the Minister, either about our policies, his own policies, or the economics that is behind this budget. Firstly we heard tonight from the Minister that the cuts to general expenditure were "very modest", at 4%, and he proceeded to scoff at the charge that he had cut 45% of expenditure. However, my hon. friend [Ms Larsen] was referring specifically to the spending reductions in trade and industry, and those are indeed 45%, which is a very substantial reduction which, unfortunately, will probably be very traumatic indeed for many Kazulians who rely on government subsidies to remain in employment. There are businesses in this country that may not be viable without government support, and it is not the place of the government to look solely at economic factors - the supply and demand that the Minister speaks of so often - but also at social factors. The market does not take into account the need of Kazulians for a secure and dignified existence, or nor is that its job, but it is certainly the job of government. It does not take into account the costs of inequality, which are very real and will be found in more than just Metzist literature. And let me just address the point, Mr Speaker, about the Minister's claim that we believe that the market is "an invention of the upper classes to impose their will on the masses and institutionalise the exploitation of their work". It is a shame that the Minister needs to resort to such strawmanning, which I am sure would not have been approved of in the classes he used to teach at university. We do not see the wealthy as malevolent - as a matter of fact, we want to retain welfare provision for them. Even Metz said that individual members of the capitalist class were not generally bad people, and we have absolutely no sympathy for the calumny that is sometimes heaped upon them, but it is important to recognise that the social reality of the market does entail some degree of oppression and exploitation. We do see people underpaid, overworked and in poverty. That is an institutional problem. With a few dishonourable exceptions, that is not the intent of the wealthier members of society. But is a problem, and a serious problem, nonetheless. Nor, Mr Speaker, is it true that Labour wants to "criminalise ambition", as the Minister claimed tonight. Instead, we believe that all success is built on a foundation of what others, including the government, have provided to you. Few enterpreneurs, if any, would flourish if the state did not support them with education, did not tend to their health when they were sick, did not provide infrastructure for their uses, did not hire police officers and firefighters to protect them from criminals and from disaster. It is that realisation that leads us to the conclusion that the most well-off in our society do owe obligations to the rest of society, and they owe obligations to the most vulnerable in particular. It is not that we wish to "criminalise ambition", only that we think that one person's ambition ought to be a blessing to all of society and not just to themselves. The Minister also tried to explain the nature of the market, saying that it was a place of voluntary exchange, a place for the flourishing of liberty. In a formal sense, perhaps that is true, but what the Minister neglects to bear in mind is that negative liberty itself is not sufficient to ensure human flourishing. When you are in poverty, when you have had all your opportunities foreclosed to you through poor education and unemployment and a troubled upbringing, there is not a huge amount of choice, in practice, that you enjoy, even if no-one is telling you to do such-and-such. It is these people, the most vulnerable, who are put in situations that no civilised society ought to think acceptable. Moreover, this voluntary exchange occurs exclusively on the basis of marginal product, that is to say, you get paid for what you generate in wealth, although even then this is not entirely true given the structure of a market economy. But let us give the unfettered market the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is true. The concern that millions of vulnerable people across this country is this: if they make less than they have mouths to feed - not because they are stupid or lazy, but often because they have lacked opportunities - how will they provide for themselves and for their families? It is here that the Minister's logic of the market once again breaks down. Surely there is more to a human being than just their economic value. It is also a disappointment, Mr Speaker, that the Minister seeks to demonise organised labour and their "special interests". Let me gently remind the Minister that the special interests of organised labour are the interests of ordinary workers, and we on this side of the house are proud to stand by those who have spent decades fighting for the rights and interests of workers and standing against those who would undermine those rights - and I regret to say that the Minister and his party do not have the most stellar record in this regard. There are people behind the unions, people who need representation to correct the inherent imbalance in bargaining power that exists in the economy, people who are more than just pawns in a game of wedge politics. He then proceeded to give an analysis of macroeconomic policy, saying that "we cannot consume what we have not already produced". But yet it is just as true that we will not produce unless we anticipate that there is someone there who wants to consume. Given that, government expenditure does have a role to play in economic growth. Furthermore, if I may suggest to the Minister, the policies of this government do clash with its stated aspirations of "shift[ing] the focus on production". If that is what the government hopes to achieve, then surely it should not be withdrawing support for production by implementing significant cuts to industrial subsidies. I want to also speak on the issue of debt, Mr Speaker, which is clearly a concern which is very close to the heart of the Minister of Finance. There was a very specific reason that the last Labour government ran a budget deficit, as my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition touched on in her speech. Labour believes in investing in the future. Labour spent money not for the fun of it but because creating better education and infrastructure, and protecting the environment, are imperative. We cannot be a prosperous country without the opportunity that education creates, and nor can we experience economic growth without the creation of infrastructure, and as my hon. friend said, there is simply no incentive for the private sector to provide many of the sorts of crucial infrastructure that the last government provided. Indeed, I firmly believe that the economic growth that would have been generated had the Minister not decided to cut funding would have been more than enough to pay off the debt, and I don't see the immorality of asking them to pay a little in debt repayments in exchange for us bequeathing to them schools and infrastructure that serves them well. Furthermore, I believe it to be a duty to future generations to ensure that they too can enjoy Kazulia's environment, which is the envy of the world. It is not responsible - and responsibility is one of the Minister's favourite words, I gather - to allow corporate interests to degrade our environment. Not, Mr Speaker, because they are evil, but simply because there is not much of an incentive for them to refrain from doing so. If the Minister is to be serious about being responsible and ensuring the welfare of future generations, he must realise that it is not good enough to have an anything-goes attitude to environmental protection, because there will be "long-term consequences" to "disastrous policies". We can thank the Minister for his honesty tonight in disclosing that he is "prepared to cut more", but as I've said on past occasions, honesty will not be enough to guarantee the welfare of those whom these cuts will inevitably target. This is especially the case given that the hon. lady next to him [Ms Nordahl] is likely to succeed him in his post, and our fundamental disagreement with her views goes even deeper than any differences we might have with the current Minister. We can only hope that the hon. lady surprises us with an understanding of the real social costs of her ideology - held in error and not in malice, no doubt, but nonetheless harmful to the interests of ordinary Kazulians. Mr Speaker, the Minister made an uncharacteristically fiery speech in reply to that of my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition - and it is good to see him in such fine form - but despite the passionate rhetoric we heard I was disappointed that he did not actually address the substance of what my hon. friend said. It is all very well to deny being a "radical", but that will offer no reassurance to the people of Kazulia, who are genuinely and legitimately concerned about the cuts in this budget, that they will not lose their jobs, and that the workings of the market will not lead, as my hon. friend said, to greater inequality in our society. It will offer no reassurance to those who do not have confidence in the semi-privatised education system that the Minister promotes, or who want a clean environment and better infrastructure. These concerns do deserve to be addressed, Mr Speaker, not just dismissed as left-wing scare-mongering. These are the concerns of the people of Kazulia whom the hon. gentleman as Minister is sworn to serve. We as the elected representatives of the people are not here to berate them for their aspirations for the future. Mr Speaker, the Labour Party is committed to addressing those concerns with respect and with sincerity, and I think that the people of Kazulia would be so grateful if the Minister and his party tried in their own way to address those concerns too. Hanne Endal Labour finance spokesperson |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 73 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 39 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: If you are likely to be logging in to Particracy with the same IP address as another player with an active account, please inform Moderation on the forum. Otherwise your account could be inactivated on suspicion of multi-accounting. |
| Random quote: “Can anyone imagine a more perverse idea than forcing faithful Hosians like me to give away my money to enable irresponsible teenage girls to kill off their children because they were too drunk to use a damn condom?" - Dr. Francesca dos Santos, former Dranian politician |