A small rant on bureaurcrats

As you may have noticed, I have been a bit non-existent with the blogging the last two weeks.  Unfortunately, my day job of trying to keep 120 employees gainfully employed got in the way.  But this just serves nicely to highlight one of my pet peeves.   That of the Vince Cable / ken Livingston Big Government type of politician who loves to bash the rich and prattle on about disparities in income. 

For It wasn’t the guy with the three swimming pools up the road who has been keeping me up at night the last two weeks.  Rather it was the rapacious government and municipal bureaucrat using an ever changing and expanding set of regulations to impose higher costs and threaten arbitrary closure of whole sections of my business.  They are the ones who have been giving me more grey hairs and forcing me to spend the last two weeks doing completely non-value added activities, instead of growing the business and employing more people.  And that is the thing with these Big Government types.  I provide an income for over a 100 families and yet I’m the bad guy who needs to be taxed and regulated up to my eyeballs.  Yet what hinders me from putting more money into the pockets of more employees are precisely those ever changing regulations and taxes.  Give me more guys with three swimming pools any day.  They pay my payroll – the bureaucrats certainly don’t.

Just had to get that off my chest.

Advertisements
  1. #1 by Tom Sperrin on November 1, 2010 - 7:21 pm

    Glad that you have now got that off your chest. Each bureauocrat has to demonstrate his importance by having an assistant who must then justify his role by extending the existing regulations into areas never originally intended and imposing them in a draconian fashion.

    All new regulations should have a review period built in. In your case the particular regulations you are talking about are restricting employment and not in the interest of the economy as a whole.

    In the UK Cameron stated before the election that every new regulation would be equated with the removal of an existing one — but, who is keeping a tally?

    • #2 by Letters Home on November 2, 2010 - 1:01 am

      Yes I agree. Unfortunately there is very little Cameron can do in the sense that he can’t stop the tide of regulations coming over from Brussels. Just recently for example we learnt that the EU is extending maternity benefits. This alone is going to cost British Industry 3bn pounds. See my post on Bouncer Ken. It is also difficult to know how much we can repeal the equality laws and other regulations introduced by the last Labour government given that our Judicial system is subservient to the European Justice System and the European Court of Human Rights. I agree with you though about a review period. Most government action is affected by the law of unintended consequences. I also like the idea of sunset clauses. If a regulation is worth keeping parliament can renew it, if it is not then they can let it die without the “you hate babies!” political fallout politicians suffer when they try to repeal a law.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: