Tim Worstall is surely right when he claims that Peter Hain’s call for two-thirds City bonuses to be donated to charity, is just political posturing within the Labour Party.
Let’s take it as given that no-one seriously considers this idea as a starter. After all, it is largely the workers that benefit from City largesse, and the payouts are tied to performance in a way that simply doesn’t happen in many other firms. And let’s leave aside even the issue of freedom of the individual to choose how to spend their money, which in many cases does including donating to charity. And at least ensures that the auction houses of London and car factories in Maranello are kept busy.
I have two problems with this posturing. Firstly, the implicit assumption that giving to charity is always and everwhere a good thing. Charity can be extremely wasteful because there is no system other than posturing and shouting to indicate where and how money should be spent. Special interest groups can dominate and the overlap in objectives and activities of many charities is simply wasteful.
The second point is about the Labour Party. I’m afraid I can’t dismiss as easily as Tim does this jockeying for position. Not ten years ago Labour MPs were queuing up to show off their New Labour credentials, enthusiastically embracing privatisation, NHS reform and free markets generally. Peter Hain’s rant on bonuses has little chance of being implemented but it seems a presage to a what everyobody clearly expects will be a very left-leaning, state-centred agenda under Gordon Brown. I hope I’m wrong but this Chancellor has shown little enthusiasm for anything other than throwing money at problems. With absolute power, why won’t this continue?
no comments