[Closed] Election Campaign

I agree with big and daft, which must a first, the story sounds like bollock to me.

[i][b]"There's good reason for believing the real story here is that it is the Conservatives who have approached the Palace about shoring up a potential Tory minority government that cannot command a majority".[/i][/b]

The 'good reason' probably being that the author wants to whip up a scare story about an alleged possible coup.

There is no reasonable possibility imo that the Queen would be a willing party to a plot to [i]"subvert the democratic will of the people"[/i] and on that basis, and in the absence of any actual real evidence, I don't believe that Cameron has approached the Queen with that in mind.

Election campaigns are best fought focusing on facts and not innuendos and factless scaremongering, something which I have grown to expect the Tories to do, not their opponents.

big_n_daft - Member

it's not exactly an order to all the Queen's armies is it?

I think you might be misunderstanding your [i]own [/i]post 😕

[quote=ernie_lynch ]I agree with big and daft, which must a first, the story sounds like bollock to me.
"There's good reason for believing the real story here is that it is the Conservatives who have approached the Palace about shoring up a potential Tory minority government that cannot command a majority".
The 'good reason' probably being that the author wants to whip up a scare story about an alleged possible coup.I happen to agree, but that was answering BnDs question regarding where this story had come from.

I agree that the Cameron/Queenie get together is likely a work of fiction.I nearly posted earlier that while everyone is looking internally about the possibilities/ramifications of a minority government and whether another election may be called then imho external foreign affairs are far more likely to influence things.If Putin makes a move or there's another another middle eastern crisis with splits between the main parties on what to do then what happens? The Royal family have a track record if this is to be believed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1951

Touching to have the hand of friendship extended to us all - will our watches be still there when we let go?

It's interesting that the DUP, of all people, have come out today complaining about the way the other parties, especially the Tories, have been implying that Scottish MP's are somehow 2nd class and aren't entitled to take part in government decision making.

I think you'll find epicsteve that the Tories don't have a problem with "Scottish MPs", they appear to have a problem SNP MPs. There can be a significant difference between the two..

I'm sure Cameron would very happily work with Scottish Tory MPs, he might even give one a ministerial position.

I think you'll find epicsteve that the Tories don't have a problem with "Scottish MPs", they appear to have a problem SNP MPs. There can be a significant difference between the two..

Their buddies in the DUP don't seem to think so - they're even going so far as suggesting they might pull their support for the Tories due to their apparent disregard for the democratic process.

Of course the truth is that the Tories don't really give a shit one way or the other, as the vote in Scotland makes little difference to their chances of ruling the UK, as that relies almost 100% on them gaining enough seats in England alone to form a UK wide majority. Instead they're using the SNP as a stick to beat Labour with, by winding up anti-SNP/Scotland sentiment in England. To an extent it's working because Millband and Labour are playing into their hands. All Labour needs to do is say that they're willing to do a deal with SNP, but that the one thing they won't agree to is another independence referendum in the life of the parliament (which the SNP aren't asking for anyway). I understand that has difficulties for them because they're holding onto the hope of gaining some ground back in Scotland (although it appears the gap has actually widened) - however Millband saying he won't have anything to do with the SNP (and making it look like it's just his decision) is counterproductive. Maybe it will even cost him his job if Labour come 2nd to the Tories?

Poll on Newsnight to say people are nearly as worried about the SNP being in power as part of a coalition as they are about UKIP

Poll on Newsnight to say people are nearly as worried about the SNP being in power as part of a coalition as they are about UKIP

The Westminster parties are doing the SNP's work for them. I suspect if there was another independence poll now it'd be a lot closer that the last one, without the SNP having to life a finger.

Their buddies in the DUP don't seem to think so - they're even going so far as suggesting they might pull their support for the Tories due to their apparent disregard for the democratic process.

Well it depends what they are referring to (I haven't seen the news story) If they are claiming that the Tories think Scottish MPs "aren't entitled to take part in government decision making" then my point stands.

If however they are claiming that the Tories see Scottish MPs as "somehow 2nd class" with regards to the west lothian question and not having the same voting rights then that's quite different.

And I personally have to agree with that, ie, I see no reason why Scottish MPs should have the same voting rights as English MPs on matters such as health, education, housing, environment, and so on.

But the real solution, the democratic solution, is to have English regional parliaments, or at the very least an English parliament. And that would leave all Westminster MPs with equal voting rights. As it should be, imo.

I'm sure Cameron would very happily work with Scottish Tory MPs, he might even give one a ministerial position.

Well, he would struggle to find 2...boom tish...

Local Farmers up here are know as the Mearns royalty, and that isn't a compliment either. The pleading billboards have appeared in the fields asking folks to put aside party loyalty and save the union. 😀

Ah, I've just read the DUP/Tory news story and it's the second point I was making concerning the west lothian question and not having the same voting rights :

[b][i]"Glib and lazy talk about SNP MPs somehow not being as entitled to vote in every division in the Commons as any other British MP, simply fuels nationalist paranoia".[/i][/b]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32479185

But to fair this won't be the first time that the DUP has fallen out with the Tories, or the worse fall out. The previous Tory Prime Minister was labeled a liar by the former DUP leader.

[img] [/img]

Own up THM and Jam,which one of you wrote Cameron's speech? 🙂
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-32491643

Any excuse for a Costello song @duckman. The speech was a cringe fest.

Ed Milliband went rownd brandz haus last night for a chat didn't ee

Alex Salmond has set up a company to accept his book profits and avoid paying top rates of tax and national insurance on the earnings. Perfectly legal tax avoidance.

So that's why the DO wanted to cut corporation tax too!! 😉

You don't have to make it up

If however they are claiming that the Tories see Scottish MPs as "somehow 2nd class" with regards to the west lothian question and not having the same voting rights then that's quite different.

The latter seemed to be what they were pointing to.

And I personally have to agree with that, ie, I see no reason why Scottish MPs should have the same voting rights as English MPs on matters such as health, education, housing, environment, and so on.

Well it'll make for an interesting UK government as we could well see the following:

UK government: Some kind of loose Labour led coalition
England: A majority of Tory MP's
Scotland: A majority of SNP MP's
Wales: A majority of Labour MP's
NI: Not really relevant to the rest of the UK parties

So we could well end up with a system where the party that controls the UK government actually has very little power and perhaps be seen as having little legitimacy in most of the UK.

Forum names changed, I wonder if anyone will notice it's still me 8)

@epic, the Tories have thought of that in proposing EVEL, there are scenarios where what you say could come to be although typically the party with a majority in England is the one who forms the government.

Both Jam + THM name changes, at the same time.....

Hmmm....

Ever seen in the same room together ? 🙂

😀

A forum snafu I see!

Andrew Bird - Member
@epic, the Tories have thought of that in proposing EVEL, there are scenarios where what you say could come to be although typically the party with a majority in England is the one who forms the government.

I'm all for EVEL.

But it should be in an English Parliament, not the UK one.

'tis fun though - have you seen the other thread 🙂

It is fun...

😀

Not wearing off yet.

Off to change it back as I would hate to be stuck with that.

Damn, missed all the fun. What happened to the names?

Anyway back to the business of the thread. The IFS have been looking at the Labour (and SNP, Green, Lib Dem?) policy of increasing the top rate of tax to 50%.

[i]IFS says on paper Labour's 50p rate will raise £3.6bn. But once behavioural changes taken into account, likely yield £110m.[/i]

This is the tricky part with tax policy and budgets, you do an overly simple back of the envelope calculation and get £3.6bn. You then spend that money on new commitments. At the end of the year you discover there is a £3.5bn hole, you can't reverse the spending at that was a political commitment, you can't put the taxes down as that's too embarrassing.

Have the IFS actually provided their reasoning because otherwise it's as fanciful as Labour, Tory and most other parties' spending plans.

Besides, aren't the IFS fairly clearly right leaning and typically going to align with Tory ideology?

JY, I think we both know there is little chance of you coming up with an explanation of why Alex Salmond has been hidden away to counter my assertion he's electoral poison. Aside from that being very difficult its a request from me which makes it doubly hard for you 😕

And I personally have to agree with that, ie, I see no reason why Scottish MPs should have the same voting rights as English MPs on matters such as health, education, housing, environment, and so on.

Why not? Decisions taken on all of those things in England have an effect on Scotland's ability to provide services.

@nemesis - I will do some research over lunch, I am enough of an anorak to search out the press releases. Behavoural change can be really significant especially around "emotional" trigger levels like 50%, I have posted on it before as has @tmh who loves to quote the academic research on the topic. There are also material changes in spending habits and certain "luxury" items / businesses get really badly impacted. The introduction of luxury VAT at 25% vs normal at 15% killed most of the UK boat building industry, that's a lot of working people in trades and support businesses which suffer. UK buyers liked to buy UK boats, now they buy French, Scandinavian and Italy boats. All these economic impacts can be really significant and hard to reverse.

@wanman, so the English should be able to vote on those things in Holyrood for the same reason. The SNP argument is just like "have their cake and eat it" with regard to the currency and many other things during the referendum. The SNP just adopts a PITA on whatever it can whenever it can. It makes no sense for them to vote on English taxes or NHS spending, Barnet formula or not.

Possibly the best outcome of this election is if there is an SNP/Labour deal.
Scotland gets Full Fiscal Autonomy - stops the whining from both sides, and lays any separation issue to bed for at least a generation (most would be happier with that than independence IMO)
England gets its own parliaments completely separate from Westminster on the same basis as Scotland, as do Wales and NI.
The House of Lords gets abolished.
Our Nuclear suicide weapon gets dismantled (or at least our leaders give an undertaking to be on the surface with their families if the button is pressed. 🙂 )
And the Paedophile Protection Society gets cleaned up.

Besides, aren't the IFS fairly clearly right leaning and typically going to align with Tory ideology?

No they are supposed to be independent and they've had Labour and Lib Dems on the board.

Anyone else think the Milliband and Russell Brand thing weird, who ever advises him on PR is nuts.

Alex Salmond has set up a company to accept his book profits and avoid paying top rates of tax and national insurance on the earnings. Perfectly legal tax avoidance.

So the IFS have said that raising the tax threshold will raise tax IMAGINE.

What did they say about the tory claims about how they would cut the welfare budget without specifying where the cuts came from then? Or save money by other ill defined Budget cuts/savings?

TBH these "debates" are just folk cheery picking [ me included] any data they find to fuel their confirmation bias

THE IFS were pretty balanced in saying all the parties plans were full of holes but you focus only on the parties you dislike.

Have to say that while there's not much that jambalaya posts that I agree with, I do tend to agree that Salmond has been deliberately kept out of the spotlight by the SNP while the Tories keep trying to shine the light on him.

As I see it, the SNP's goal is still for independence even if it's a way off in the future. To achieve that they need power/leverage and the best way to achieve that right now is to be in a coalition be it formal or not.

As such, ensuring that the SNP is not viewed excessively negatively outside of Scotland is important. If they did become the electoral poison that the right would like to claim they are (and are attempting to paint the picture of), there would be significantly less chance of them getting into a position of coalition - Labour are well aware of how badly coalition can turn out for a party having seen the LibDems made to look rather naive by the tories over the last five years and lost considerable support. As such, keeping Salmond out of the limelight is a valid and IMO the correct tactic for them to pursue.

And come to think of it, unpleasant as it often is, pushing the scare stories about the SNP/Salmond is probably tactically (if not ethically) the right way for the tories to play it.

EDIT - just noticed, 600!

jambalaya - Member

JY, I think we both know there is little chance of you coming up with an explanation of why Alex Salmond has been hidden away to counter my assertion he's electoral poison.

Mostly, the reason he's not been such a big part of the SNP campaign is that the succession to Sturgeon's been a huge success. Having old leaders hanging around tends to distract from the new person as they take over, nothing unusual there. (you may recall lots of people predicting that she'd be stuck in his shadow, and that'd be exactly the story you'd probably be pushing if he was playing a bigger part)

But yep, I reckon it's also a simple matter of good tactics- it's helped counter the rabid anti-SNP madness from the Tories and their press. They've had years to make Salmond into their Carthage but that stuff's worked far less well against Sturgeon.

Just because Miliband always plays along with Tory party strategy doesn't mean the SNP have to 😉

[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/britains-economy-realises-its-just-a-load-of-bullshit-2015042897821 ]The Mash nails it again on the whole 'economic recovery' thing[/url]

😆

I think we both know there is little chance of you coming up with an explanation of why Alex Salmond has been hidden away to counter my assertion he's electoral poison.

I have to say your approach to "debate" has made me smile [ as did the critique of AS for doing what you [ and THM] support and defend on here].

The politics threads are getting a wee bit strange as we all just fling mud, argue poorly/incoherently/inconsistently and debate very little.
I am almost tired of them tbh

JY you old sensitive soul, have some tea and biscuits. Take a rest from the chat forum,, like me I am sure you won't be able to stay away for long 😉

On AS's tax planning its just the irony of wanting to introduce a higher 50p tax rate which nails those on PAYE whilst someone like him who can plan does so as to avoid it

Northwind in the spirit of good debate, thanks for your post. Sturgeon has continued in the same messaging vein as AS and its proving very successful, I think it helps a lot she is a woman as it differentiates the SNP further from the 3/4 main parties.

[i]The politics threads are getting a wee bit strange as we all just fling mud, argue poorly/incoherently/inconsistently and debate very little.
I am almost tired of them tbh[/i]

Hold on have I missed something? Isn't this what we see from the leaders of all the political parties at every opportunity. The AM show on Sunday was a classic example....no wonder people are disilloushoned!(sic) Its actually getting worse and worse...no one answers questions, they sit for hours being briefed by Spin Doctors before any interview/debate. I have to give credit to Ernie on here for trying his best, but he's a bit of a lone voice.

On the IFS [url= http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/bns/BN172_executive_summary.pdf ]Report here[/url]

The report is very interesting, didn't realise the Tories have some nasty pension policies too.

A few snippets - this I think we all know / agree with - more taxes whoever wins

Conclusion
With significant deficit reduction still to come, households can expect the tax and benefit
changes implemented over the next parliament to reduce their incomes, on average.
There are large differences between the Conservatives, Labour Party and Liberal
Democrats in how they propose to do this. But they share a lack of willingness to be clear
about the details, and an inability to resist the urge for piecemeal changes which make
the overall system less efficient and coherent.

Absurd reforms proposed by all, see the portion of adults who pay tax has fallen substantially, further on in the document it also speaks of how many more of us will pay the higher rate by 2020 whoever wins

There is also a shared lack of any attempt to paint a coherent strategy
for tax reform, a shared desire to impose further, often absurd, complications to the tax
system, and a shared lack of willingness to set out specific benefit measures which chime
with the parties’ rhetoric.
Only 56% of adults now pay income tax, down from 61% in 2010–11

Finally, assuming you haven't died of boredowm and stopped reading is the bit on the 50% rate - the £100 figure comes from the HMRC in terms of how much the cut from 50% to 45% cost. As TMH and I post frequently this is a common effect of reducing higher rates of tax, the actual tax lost is small or indeed the tax take can rise.

The proposed reintroduction of the 50% additional rate of income tax would clearly leave
those with annual incomes over £150,000 worse off. The extent to which it would raise
any additional revenue is unclear. HM Revenue and Customs’ central estimate, signed off
as reasonable by the OBR, was that cutting the additional rate from 50% to 45% would
cost just £100 million. Raising it again might raise this much, it might raise substantially
more, or it might actually cost the exchequer revenue. We genuinely cannot be sure. The
policy should be seen more as a way to reduce the highest taxable incomes rather than a
way to increase revenue significantly.

See the last point – the introduction of a 50% income band will reduce incomes as people who have a choice will stop being paid that way. Generally those at the top of income scale have that choice as they own their own business or they are in senior management positions or they just move abroad.

Anyone else think the Milliband and Russell Brand thing weird, who ever advises him on PR is nuts.

"A spokesperson from the Labour party said Miliband went to Brand's property, where the comedian runs his satirical YouTube channel The Trews, to record an interview."

He was not courting him he was being interviewed by him.

Jambas, careful you will getting people frothy. What the IFS actually said was that

the proposed reintroduction of the 50% rate if income tax would clearly leave those with annual incomes over £150,000 worse off. The extent to which it would raise any additional revenue is unclear....it might raise this much (the £100m), it might raise substantially more, or it might actually cost the exchequer revenue. [b]we cannot be genuinely sure[/b]. The policy should be seen more as a way to reduce the highest taxable incomes rather than a way to increase revenue significantly.

The key is estimates vary in the mid 40s as to where the tipping point is in terms of tax income elasticity.

And guess what they conclude that

with significant deficit reduction still to come (!!) households can expect the tax and benefit changes implemented over the next parliament to reduce their incomes, on average. There are large differences between the Conservatives, Labour Party and Liberal Democrats in how they propose to do this. But they share a lack of willingness to be clear about the details, and an inability to resist the urge for piecemeal changes which make the overall system less efficient and coherent.

Tinker, tinker

Brand would have more credibility if he stood as an MP, even if he didn't win

If only you would apply that to yourself.

Oops cross post.

Hmm, question.

"HM Revenue and Customs’ central estimate, signed off as reasonable by the OBR, was that cutting the additional rate from 50% to 45% would cost just £100 million. Raising it again might raise this much"

Presumably it should be possible to review that estimate and see if it was proved correct? Or is it still too fast?

The IFS to their credit are pretty clear it's all projections and maybes, so saying it shows that it "will reduce incomes" seems pretty far out. Or in fact saying that they've concluded that it "will raise £100m" when the part you've quoted says anything but.

NW there is lots of debate and time spent in trying to calculate the figures both ways - not surprisingly as the tipping point is widely viewed as being somewhere in the mid 40s but is it 42, 45, 48, who knows? Hence as the IFS conclude forget the bit about raising revenue or not and accept that it's just a way to reduce peoples income - from a libertarian perspective, that is enough!!! 😉

A simpleton's view (mine) - 50% definitely a tipping - it's half which most will just say is "wrong"

At 40% you keep £60 and pay £40 - so you keep 50% more than you pay

So 45% you keep £55 and pay £45 - that's starting to look and feel like 50/50 - also you have 10% less money (approx) vs 40% which impacts spending etc

48% is £52/£48 so that is as good as 50

As the percentages increase the numbers get closer quickly psychologically and numbers wise.

Also actual top rate now is 45+2 NI = 47

@Northwind - yes I think there is enough time for the government to have looked at it. Not sure the IFS have all the data though. Also there are so many moving parts, do you really know whether people have done better/worse in their business or whether they have shifted money about in ways they are not obliged to say ? It is ferociously complicated, it why non-dom has been left for so long as people really don't know how much it would raise/lose to change it.

Lets face it unless we increase taxes or reduce spending in the end the UK will end up like Greece.

But the government who ever wins should do a top to bottom review of all taxes with the aim of simplifying them all. And while they are at it scrap National Insurance it's a joke.

One thing I'd do if I were in power is to put up the VED on diesels, why they are seen as the 'green' option is daft. Lets get back to flatter rates of VED on cars.

Brand would have more credibility if he stood as an MP

If that's really your view then you really don't understand what he's been talking about these last couple of years. I don't for one second think Miliband is daft enough to 'court' Brand. He's daft enough to be photographed leaving his house though which doesn't look particularly good. You wonder what his advisors are upto. As with his photoshoot holding the s*n, and the bacon sarnie thing it's almost like they have a hidden agenda to make him look stupid.

Lets face it unless we increase taxes or reduce spending in the end the UK will end up like Greece.

🙄 Please lets not start on the national credit card rubbish. If you must go do it on the Greece thread.

A simpleton's view (mine) - 50% definitely a tipping - it's half which most will just say is "wrong"

As you said before, there's stacks of research into what that number is, and as far as I can see there's a consensus that it's between 20% and 70%. Lucky we can rely on economists for sound guidance, eh?

Are they 100% correct as well?

jambalaya - Member

@Northwind - yes I think there is enough time for the government to have looked at it. Not sure the IFS have all the data though.

Cynical people might suggest that if the government has hard figures and they supported their argument, they'd be releasing them 😉

But you seem to be swinging one second from saying it'll only gain £100 million, to the next saying it will reduce incomes, and now to admitting we don't know.

His next move is to use evidence, he does not believe, to prove he was right all along 😛

@dazh - I do understand what Brand is saying but if you want change you achieve through our political process

@Northwind it's all related, I believe higher top rates of tax (certainly above 45 and probably above 40) have a negative impact on the economy. One impact as the IFS points out is change of behaviour by people paying themselves less, ie reducing income, they find different ways to get the money or its benefit to themselves. One way is to delay paying it for example doing what the Labour windpower guy did - he lent himself £3m resulting in £60k tax versus close to £2m he would have paid had it been a bonus via PAYE. HMRC pointed out the 50% to 45% cut cost only £100m in lost revenues, with respect to taxation that's a bit of a rounding error.

We don't know for sure but you can make educated guesses which is what the IFS etc do. What's clear is that talking of 50% taxes (or 75% like the French did) is good for getting votes if you are a left sided party. The fact it then turns into less tax revenue you just ignore and borrow some more with the most important thing being you got elected.

I do understand what Brand is saying but if you want change you achieve through our political process

I don't think you do. You don't achieve revolutionary political change through the existing political system. The two things are mutually exclusive. Saying he should stand for parliament is ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as saying that standing for parliament is the only way to achieve change.

jambalaya - Member

HMRC [s]pointed out[/s] estimated the 50% to 45% would cut cost only £100m in lost revenues

According to your own IFS quotes.

jambalaya - Member

The fact it then turns into [s]less[/s] more tax revenue

According to your own IFS quotes, and also according to you, elsewhere in this same post.

Is there any chance you could go and have an argument with yourself and come back when you know what you think?

Northwind £100m in terms of the overall tax take is tiny, its very hard to control for all the variables which change year to year when trying to make a comparison, £100m is like a statistical error. The big take-away is that it's not many billions and the IFS data shows that.

Plus you have to incorporate the economic effect, if people elect not to pay themselves (eg by putting more into their pensions) then there is a potentially large negative impact on economic activity.

VAT on food as they have in France, Germany, Spain etc etc is a much more effective way to raise tax revenue but its politically impossible here. However, the longer we stay in the EU the more inevitable that becomes. The EU has already pushed us on low rates of VAT on energy bills and other zero rated exemptions like childrens clothes.

What I think is you cannot just keep going back to the higher rate tax payers / "the rich" and expect it to work out as a winning policy longer term. It will be a policy which turns into less revenue not more.

But you seem to be swinging one second from saying it'll only gain £100 million, to the next saying it will reduce incomes, and now to admitting we don't know.

And that's before we get onto the issue of whether that gain or loss in tax revenue leads to more or less economic growth, which gives you an even bigger set of unknowns.

Rather than trying to judge the parties on which one can steer the economy better - which is a bit like trying to decide which of two gnats can better steer a camel - maybe it's a better idea to decide which party has values which correspond more closely to your own.

DrJ - Member
A simpleton's view (mine) - 50% definitely a tipping - it's half which most will just say is "wrong"
As you said before, there's stacks of research into what that number is, and as far as I can see there's a consensus that it's between 20% and 70%. Lucky we can rely on economists for sound guidance, eh?

Sarcasm aside, yes it is but its is a very difficult thing to measure. Economists understand the drivers - the income and substitution effect - the challenge is quantifying them when the variables themselves are unstable and separate taxes have different TIEs. On the consensus, it is (as I have said before in the mid 40s) - one reason why labour were smart enough not to increase it before other than as the trap to leave the Tories to fall into and from which they have still to climb out.

jambalaya - Member

The big take-away is that it's not many billions and the IFS data shows that.

That must be what they meant when they said

"it might raise this much (the £100m), it might raise substantially more, or it might actually cost the exchequer revenue. we cannot be genuinely sure."

Nobody thinks it's many billions- the highest number I've seen (which you're aware of, because you posted it) is £3.6bn. The HMRC [i]estimate [/i]which you keep reporting as fact, is £100m. The IFS conclusion is that they haven't got a scooby but you keep using that to simultaneously argue that it raises and lowers tax take.

As Brand believes that people shouldn't vote, perhaps he's advising The Millibanana to stand down and get a "job" as a media "personality" instead of trying to be a politician.

Sarcasm aside, yes it is but its is a very difficult thing to measure. Economists understand the drivers - the income and substitution effect - the challenge is quantifying them when the variables themselves are unstable and separate taxes have different TIEs.

Well, yes - but that's the point isn't it? We can say that, in isolation, x may lead to y, but things never are in isolation and the system is grossly non-linear. Hence it's not a useful predictive tool.

@Northwind the £3.6bn estimate came from the Labour party (that's what I read)

@DrJ but you have to have some tools, best to estimate a few different ways and compare, in order to set government policy. You can't pay for things with "values", you need money. That's the fundamental argument from the Tories, without a thriving economy and thus money you can't afford a welfare state.

[img] [/img]

4:21 and a minute late but we'll give him that 🙂

Yes the tories want a thriving economy [ and low taxes] so they can afford the welfare state
I am sure we can all agree that you just nailed the Tory raison d'etre
😀
I genuinely cannot tell if you are just pulling everyones leg on here or if you believe the stuff you write.

Am I alone in this respect ?

Yes the tories want a thriving economy [ and low taxes] so they can afford the welfare state
I am sure we can all agree that you just nailed the Tory raison d'etre

LOL. A couple more years of Little Lord Cameron and it'll feel like we're living in Denmark!

JY the best way to increase tax revenue is to grow the economy and have more people in work. That will have a far bigger impact than tweaking tax rates. That is the foundation of Tory party policy which is quite far to the left of the US Democrats for example.

There was a priceless moment on Question Time when Natalie Bennett said the Greens would create lots of new Government/state jobs and IDS pointed out that those have to be paid for by private sector taxes or borrowing. Of course NB went to the gifts that always keep on giving, a banker bonus tax and tax avoidance etc etc. The pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

JY here is one example. The Tories protect the NHS budget and spend £130bn pa. The Labour party say the Tories are destroying the NHS and are going to save it and spend £131.5bn. Oh those uncaring Tories.

Now the argument has moved on with the Tories saying they will deliver the £8bn pa extra the NHS has said they will need by 2020 whilst Labour have promised £2.5bn (note this will be paid for by the Mansion tax which the IFS piece I linked to says is very unclear what the amount raised would actually be)

Politics is all about spin but the black/white comparisons between Labor and Tory are overdone in many areas.

There was a priceless moment on Question Time when Natalie Bennett said the Greens would create lots of new Government/state jobs and IDS [s]pointed out that those have to be paid for by private sector taxes or borrowing[/s] made the usual witless lazy knee-jerk response that totally misses the point.

FTFY

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/apr/28/uk-economic-growth-slows-ahead-of-general-election ]http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/apr/28/uk-economic-growth-slows-ahead-of-general-election[/url]

Another piece of marvellous spin from the tories. The economy isn't as healthy as they'd claimed, growth is weak and deflation is looming. This however is proof that labour can't be trusted, rather than proof that the centrepiece of their campaign - their management of the economy - isn't as effective as they'd claimed.

@dazh, fair enough but the UK is still out-performing Europe quite comfortably and there is a strong argument about relative performance vs Labour given their likely policies.