Poll: Which party will get your vote in the General Election?

[Hatter The Mad]

Gordon Brown accused of cover-up over gold sale

Sorry if this was posted already. Only knew about it (Brown claiming BoE stood along his decision) after watching QT tonight. Not suprised but I will take a little pinch of salt coming from the Telegraph. I hope FactCheck get on it to confirm Telegraph's article.

It is true. It took years of FOI battles to get the treasury reports advising him not to do it.

He was also advised against the auction method - which was sealed bids to be received by an ex-date, then they get opened. Then, the lowest bids that are closest to the reserve price were picked. Those with higher bids were discarded! (Blind reserve auction).

It is beyond belief.

 

[doodah]

Emailed FactCheck asking if they could look into it

 

[drunkenmaster]

Frankly everyone should realise the choices, the party that wants to tax the rich to hell, seemingly let the poor off, which leads to eventual much higher taxes on the poor, the party that will only say what the majority(lower income earners) want to hear in an effort to secure their bid, while failing to live up to any promises they've made for years and years.

Or the party that has the balls to do whats need, the ability to say the rich shouldn't be uber taxed, because its horrifically bad for our economy and long term, poorer people, and who aren't willing to constantly "APPEAR" to be making life easier for the poor just to get elected.

I don't think Tories are a perfect party, or even that good, but a clear warning sign is a party that promises lots, delivers nothing lies about everything, has an incompetant moron in charge who has bungled everything while he's been in charge and constantly makes empty promises for votes. Labour for a long time have cared about nothing more than getting back in power.

Hitting business's and rich people, any economist will tell you thats the single worst thing you can do, and its all Labour do, as they've done this in an apparent bid to increase tax on the richest and reduce it for the poorest, has it gone down for the poor, or up?


The single most laughable thing was after the budget, having a Labour guy absolutely exstatic that the projection for national debt was down 100million, on the pre-budget estimate, of 1.4trillion. They think saving 100million, as the national debt doubles over 5 years....... is good? Shouldn't that tell you how very wrong our current situation is, the whole world is pleading with us for massive cuts in spending and reducing our debt. Labours plan is to double it.

 

[Naffa]

You've obviously missed this then?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/25/alistair-darling-cut-deeper-margaret-thatcher

Any economist will tell you that cutting National Insurance during the most fragile peacetime recovery, without being able to fund it (it'll create an additional £30billion hole) isn't "what's necessary."

 

[Hatter The Mad]

naffa;

Any economist will tell you that increasing national insurance during fragile recovery, while public sector jobs are being trimmed, isn't "what's necessary". The CBI and OSB predict that the rise in employment tax will cost at least 50,000 jobs in one year.

50,000 private sector jobs while we're trying to recover AND at the same time cutting back public sector spending. Good one.

The £30bn 'blackhole' is Labour spiel. I'd have expected more than your copy/paste of what a Labour politician has said.

The "hole" is £6bn (http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/2010/03/30/the-big-debt-battle-osbornes-national-insurance-hole/), which they say can be made through efficiency savings. Seen as though Labour themselves have identified £11bn (which is the LEAST figure, there is so, so much more) of savings ready for immediate action, I don't think it is too far fetched.

 

[Mr Jack]

Any economist will tell you that increasing national insurance during fragile recovery, while public sector jobs are being trimmed, isn't "what's necessary". The CBI and OSB predict that the rise in employment tax will cost at least 50,000 jobs in one year.

The CBI, to be fair, are not the most reliable source on such things - they have a track record of crying wolf over any tax that affects businesses, claiming it will cause job losses. I agree that raising NI is the single worst tax that they could possibly choose to raise, ever, on both economic and ideological grounds but I take the CBI's projections of job losses with a huge pinch of salt.

 

[Dolph]

You've obviously missed this then?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/25/alistair-darling-cut-deeper-margaret-thatcher

Any economist will tell you that cutting National Insurance during the most fragile peacetime recovery, without being able to fund it (it'll create an additional £30billion hole) isn't "what's necessary."

What a load of utter crap. For a start, the rise in national insurance won't raise close to £30bn, more like £8bn. a partial reversal of the rise will cost less than that.

Secondly, national insurance is a direct tax on employment, and employment in the wealth creating sectors (eg not the public sector) is required to grow the economy.

Thirdly, the abject stupidity of identifying cost savings and not implementing them (the labour approach) is idiocy beyond belief when one of the largest drags on the recovery is deficit spending, a massive debt and large interest costs that result.

There are also plenty of economists who disagree with you...

 

[Naffa]

What a load of utter crap. For a start, the rise in national insurance won't raise close to £30bn, more like £8bn. a partial reversal of the rise will cost less than that.

I've heard that the Conservative policy of abandoning it will cost £30billion, but again, I'm happy to be proven wrong if you'd be kind enough to reference that.

Secondly, national insurance is a direct tax on employment, and employment in the wealth creating sectors (eg not the public sector) is required to grow the economy.

I absolutely agree.

Thirdly, the abject stupidity of identifying cost savings and not implementing them (the labour approach) is idiocy beyond belief when one of the largest drags on the recovery is deficit spending, a massive debt and large interest costs that result.

I absolutely agree, again. Most of the efficiency savings that have been identified have been massively overvalued, anyway. Vince Cable made an exceptionally good point in saying that a lot of the governments proposed efficiency savings are make believe, but they've then based a lot of their budget around those savings.

There are also plenty of economists who disagree with you...

Would you be so kind as to name them, please? As I can think of plenty of economists that agree with me.

One being someone that signed the letter in support of former Conservative proposals.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/mar/29/conservative-national-insurance-irresponsible


I'll quote this part, as it pretty much sums up how I feel about it.

An economist who signed a letter that appeared to support Conservative plans to tackle Britain's budget deficit said today it was "clearly irresponsible" of the party to partially reverse government proposals for an increase in national insurance without a full explanation of how it would be funded.

 

[Dolph]

I've heard that the Conservative policy of abandoning it will cost £30billion, but again, I'm happy to be proven wrong if you'd be kind enough to reference that.

You haven't referenced it, so you first

But here you go in the meantime.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/stephanieflanders/2010/04/april_fools.html

However, the IFS has estimated the cost of the measures proposed by Mr Osborne on Monday at £5.6bn a year, falling somewhat over time.

I absolutely agree.

I absolutely agree, again. Most of the efficiency savings that have been identified have been massively overvalued, anyway. Vince Cable made an exceptionally good point in saying that a lot of the governments proposed efficiency savings are make believe, but they've then based a lot of their budget around those savings.

Well, the trick is, of course, to reduce budgets by the same amount as the savings. This is the party that is often not done, and especially has not been done by Labour.

Would you be so kind as to name them, please? As I can think of plenty of economists that agree with me.

One being someone that signed the letter in support of former Conservative proposals.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/mar/29/conservative-national-insurance-irresponsible

I'll quote this part, as it pretty much sums up how I feel about it.

What about this opposition from an IFS economist to the rise in national insurance?

http://www.hnt.co.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=29842&d=601&h=160&f=260

That would be the same IFS that costed the tory proposal...

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Welcome to the election. If we're to believe Alistair Darling, the Conservatives' 'credibility gap' on tax and spending has shrunk by 34% since January, or about £11bn. If they carry on like this, they might be thoroughly credible by election day.

Back in January, Labour said there was a £33.8bn hole in the Conservatives' plans. Now it's fallen to £22.2bn - suggesting a 34% rise in credibiliy. But, to coin a phrase, Labour's numbers really don't add up.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/stephanieflanders/2010/04/april_fools.html

 

[Dolph]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/30/national-insurance-rise-deficit

At a time when unemployment is painfully high and workers' incomes are being squeezed, it is astonishing that the government – a Labour government – thinks that the best way to raise extra revenue is to increase already high taxes on labour. What is progressive about hitting hard-working people with the bill for the financial crisis?


The national insurance hike is not only unfair; it will also damage future growth by making labour more expensive and penalising effort. It will drive a bigger wedge between the cost of employing people and how much they actually take home, cutting pay and costing jobs. And it will discourage many people from working harder – and some from working at all. That, in turn, will reduce the tax take and raise spending on unemployment and other social benefits.


Existing income tax and national insurance already increase labour costs by half, according to the OECD, while a single person on two-thirds of average wages faces an effective tax rate of over 40% on every additional pound they earn. Raising taxes still further on something the government wants to encourage – hard work– is perverse. Governments of all stripes should be cutting them as far as possible instead.

 

[Dolph]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/03/david-cameron-election-pledge-promise

Brown may leave us with another PM without mandate once the economy recovers... According to Mandleson.

 

[Naffa]

Today's headline in the Guardian:

George Osborne: business revolt has destroyed case for Gordon Brown

But what interests me is the part beneath:

Shadow chancellor promises no new cuts in first year of David Cameron government

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/02/george-osborne-business-revolt-gordon-brown


Am I missing something here??

 

[Hatter The Mad]

I don't think so? He has promised no further cuts other than those sets out already (in the first year) - efficiency savings, child trust fund cut backs etc.

 

[britboy4321]

I don't think just as we leave recession we should be cutting government spending into the economy, as to do so risks a 'double-dip' recession as to put it simply less people will have money to spend at our businesses.

I also don't think the tories know where government spending inefficiencies are (If they do why would they keep it a secret? How would they know something that the current government doesn't?), so they will actually just say to the department boss .. 'er, make it more efficient, we're reducing your budget by 20%', the dept. boss will just reduce the level of service by 20%, as happened with the last tory government..

I don't think anyone really believes the tories have discovered some secret elixir of government waste, and can reduce the cost without affecting the service. The trouble for the tories is that unfortunately no-one else (about the age of 28) believes it either. We've been here before. Funny enough they reduce government spending, and the service gets worse. Simples!

 

[Von Smallhausen]

Spending HAS to be cut Britboy.

 

[Naffa]

I could pretty much quote Vince Cable verbatim, but I'll paraphrase instead. He made the point that Osborne and the Tories have been accusing the government's efficiency savings as being 'make believe,' and then they've been going on to use these 'make believe' efficiency savings to fund a tax cut. It just smells a little too fishy to me, and I'm not convinced this will live past the manifesto.

 

[britboy4321]

Spending HAS to be cut Britboy.

Why? Why now rather than in 2 years? Don't say 'we're skint' as of course that is not true. Avoiding more recession surely should be the way forward?

If we save £100 off the national debt, but it causes a double-dip recession that costs the economy £500, was that a good decision?


I just wish the tories were more honest. All they really need to say is 'Listen, the public sector and public services are going to get a good kicking from us, the people at the bottom of the pile will have less help from the state. But hey look at the good side, you'll end up with a much lower tax bill, especially if you're minted.' and I'd think 'fair enough, they're saying it how it is'.

The 'Money savings for free with no reduction to public services' thing though? Honestly, do they really think we're all called 'Dolph'. I mean, no-one with their eye on the ball, with some grasp of history, really thinks that's true, everyone knows public services always suffer under right-wing parties (that's kind of the point!), so why even say they ..er .. won't this time? The masses are stupid but surely not that stupid.

 

[James J]

Why? Why now rather than in 2 years? Don't say 'we're skint' as of course that is not true. Avoiding more recession surely should be the way forward?

If we save £100 off the national debt, but it causes a double-dip recession that costs the economy £500, was that a good decision?

You have to make cuts now, not in 2 years due to the GDP being spent more than its actually bringing in, meaning instead of a recession it would be more like a depression if we just ignored it.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

So scrapping ID cards will cause a double dip ?

Scrapping child trust funds for better off families will wreck their finances and stop them spending ?

Every little helps.

167 billion this year and a total national debt of heading for a trillion Pounds suggests cuts and efficiency savings are needed and now rather than in two years when it is quite possible that the UKs AAA rating is no more and the cost of borrowing increases.