A superb Speech and Vow by Cameron well above expectations
Discussion
Convert said:
As the son of a miner, born and bred in the People's Republic of South Yorkshire, I have to agree that it was a fine speech.
I've never voted Tory in my life, historically Labour, recently UKIP.
I had planned to vote UKIP at the next GE, but in my area you could put a red tie on a chimp and it would get elected.
However I like the cut of Dave's Jib.
Since I don't fancy waking up next to Red Ed, I guess I'll be getting my blue tie out.
That would be the informed choice to make - you won't last long here.....I've never voted Tory in my life, historically Labour, recently UKIP.
I had planned to vote UKIP at the next GE, but in my area you could put a red tie on a chimp and it would get elected.
However I like the cut of Dave's Jib.
Since I don't fancy waking up next to Red Ed, I guess I'll be getting my blue tie out.
NormalWisdom said:
As for the last 4 and something years. They started with a plan, that plan had a whole host of external dependencies ........ over which they had no control. Those external forces did not perform as and when required and hence the plan has taken much longer to implement. It is a scenario that exists in just about every walk of like.
In short, it hasn't all gone perfectly to plan but we're doing ok & slowly getting out of the mire.I'd say what we're doing is working, so carry on with maybe a few minor tweeks here & there but no major changes in direction.
Rovinghawk said:
In short, it hasn't all gone perfectly to plan but we're doing ok & slowly getting out of the mire.
I'd say what we're doing is working, so carry on with maybe a few minor tweeks here & there but no major changes in direction.
The fact that some people are claiming that too mcuh has been cut and others are saying that too little has been cut means that the middle ground where they are sailing (which may not economically be the best option) is politically the most sensible option.I'd say what we're doing is working, so carry on with maybe a few minor tweeks here & there but no major changes in direction.
Certainly the 'heavily tax the rich' approach favoured by a few on here has been a disaster in France.
ClaphamGT3 said:
I love the contradiction that, in the same post you both call for "investment" and challenge where the money will come from to fund tax cuts.
In reality, tax cuts will be funded if and when we stop spending money on non-essential public services and, once we have paid down the deficit, accept the principle that money is better in the pockets of those who earned it than in the treasury's coffers. Socialists hate this of course, because it weans individuals off their dependency on the State.
The only thing I heard at conference with which I fundamentally and ideologically disagree is The Chancellor's notion of running a surplus. The state has no business running a surplus; it isn't their money to save for a rainy day
You've misunderstood.. but it is a complex situation so one short(ish) post is not going to get the point across perfectly. In reality, tax cuts will be funded if and when we stop spending money on non-essential public services and, once we have paid down the deficit, accept the principle that money is better in the pockets of those who earned it than in the treasury's coffers. Socialists hate this of course, because it weans individuals off their dependency on the State.
The only thing I heard at conference with which I fundamentally and ideologically disagree is The Chancellor's notion of running a surplus. The state has no business running a surplus; it isn't their money to save for a rainy day
What you have said pretty concisely sums up the Tory ideology, but disproving that myth is a lot of work and involves effort not just from me but also from you.
The problem with the idea of non-essential services is that they have the wrong idea of what is essential and what isn't. For example, a national healthcare service ensures that the population are fit to work, and that everyone gets the same access to care regardless of income. This is important, as without it those who are less well off become less able to work due to neglected health, and so decline in to a spiral of requiring state support. This costs the state money, and up-to-date fiscal indexes show that a health service will put more back in to the economy than it takes out.
This is the same for investment in infrastructure. Such projects - if sourced fairly - a key point to make - generate work in real terms. This means the workforce are better off than they would be without it (i.e. on state support or low pay jobs), pay back more in taxes, and contribute to the economy by buying things. The net contribution is positive.
The same also applies to energy. You only have to look at the contract for nuclear that was given to EDF, where we not only heavily subsidise the build but also subsidise their profits as part of the deal. PFI is a terrible waste of taxpayer money! The net contribution here is negative.
This whole idea of reckless state spending is completely on its head in Tory ideology. Their idea is that if you slash government spending then you save money, which is correct in the short term, but when those services are sold off to a private sector that primarily cares about profits - especially when they are then involved in tax avoidance - then that contribution becomes negative and we are worse off. It makes sense that if somebody is skimming off the top, then there is less for everyone else.
Unfortunately you have to spend money to make money. Cutting investment does not make a country money. It makes the private sector lots of money, sure! But that does not trickle down to the taxpayer as they would have you believe.
sidicks said:
Yes, of course you are right.
What we need to the problem of excessive government spending is to increase government spending...
See above.What we need to the problem of excessive government spending is to increase government spending...
sidicks said:
Certainly the 'heavily tax the rich' approach favoured by a few on here has been a disaster in France.
I don't think anybody who understands the situation is saying that. I don't think taxes should be increased for the rich, I just think they should be ENFORCED.Benefit errors and fraud cost the economy £1m per day. Tax avoidance costs the economy £260m per day.
Once we enforce the tax system we have, we can afford a lot more state expenditure on things that create real jobs - infrastructure, energy, healthcare, education, and so on.
There would be no need to increase tax. I would highly expect taxes could then be reduced!
CamMoreRon said:
Tax avoidance costs the economy £260m per day.
This statement is b
ks: how can it 'cost' the economy money to which it was never entitled?If someone gets a car with a £30 VED instead of a car with a £450 VED, is this 'costing the economy' £420? These are fantasy numbers with no basis in fact.
CamMoreRon said:
sidicks said:
Certainly the 'heavily tax the rich' approach favoured by a few on here has been a disaster in France.
I don't think anybody who understands the situation is saying that. I don't think taxes should be increased for the rich, I just think they should be ENFORCED.Benefit errors and fraud cost the economy £1m per day. Tax avoidance costs the economy £260m per day.
Once we enforce the tax system we have, we can afford a lot more state expenditure on things that create real jobs - infrastructure, energy, healthcare, education, and so on.
There would be no need to increase tax. I would highly expect taxes could then be reduced!
CamMoreRon said:
I don't think anybody who understands the situation is saying that. I don't think taxes should be increased for the rich, I just think they should be ENFORCED.
Benefit errors and fraud cost the economy £1m per day. Tax avoidance costs the economy £260m per day.
Once we enforce the tax system we have, we can afford a lot more state expenditure on things that create real jobs - infrastructure, energy, healthcare, education, and so on.
There would be no need to increase tax. I would highly expect taxes could then be reduced!
Tax avoidance is complying with the law to reduce the amount of tax paid. Hence is entirely legal.Benefit errors and fraud cost the economy £1m per day. Tax avoidance costs the economy £260m per day.
Once we enforce the tax system we have, we can afford a lot more state expenditure on things that create real jobs - infrastructure, energy, healthcare, education, and so on.
There would be no need to increase tax. I would highly expect taxes could then be reduced!
Therefore there is nothing to 'enforce'.
CamMoreRon said:
See above.
You seem to be claiming that the Tories are planning to do away with the NHS. That is false.You seem to be claiming that the involvement of the private sector in state services is a bad thing because of 'profit (not necessarily, see Sweden for further information).
You seem to be confused between excessive state spending generally, as opposed to state spending on investment. They are quite different. Few would question the need to borrow to fund investment if a suitable return can be achieved.
CamMoreRon said:
Tax avoidance costs the economy £260m per day.
Link didn't work for me.Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but tax 'avoidance' doesn't cost the economy anything - it's just people or corporations arranging their tax affairs so they don't over pay tax. You may argue that the tax system is too complex, therefore legitimately allowing this to occur, but are you suggesting that people should pay more tax than they are obliged to under the rules of the system? Tax 'evasion' is a different issue.
CamMoreRon said:
sidicks said:
Certainly the 'heavily tax the rich' approach favoured by a few on here has been a disaster in France.
I don't think anybody who understands the situation is saying that. I don't think taxes should be increased for the rich, I just think they should be ENFORCED.Benefit errors and fraud cost the economy £1m per day. Tax avoidance costs the economy £260m per day.
Once we enforce the tax system we have, we can afford a lot more state expenditure on things that create real jobs - infrastructure, energy, healthcare, education, and so on.
There would be no need to increase tax. I would highly expect taxes could then be reduced!
With regard to your post about non essential services, you will note that the current Govt has pledged to continue its commitment to protect the NHS budget and to invest in infrastructure where a return on that investment can be shown.
Beyond this spending however, there is still very significant non-essential public sector spend and, to compound that, inefficiency and wastage even in essential spend. this is on a massive scale. One small example is in the NHS. The NHS owns - and pays to maintain - a redundant estate slightly larger than the entire footprint of the Sainsbury's retail, office and distribution portfolio in the UK. This is property that is not used by the NHS and never will be again. Another example would be the ludicrous inefficiency that exists in provision of step-down care and the division of responsibilities between the NHS and the ASC function of the local authority. Unquestionably an essential service but managed hideously inefficiently with ASC budget consumed by paying bed-blocking new to acute trusts, paying for emergency provision in private care homes and paying for agency home carers because there is no integrated system of demand planning between the NHS and local authorities.
I could go on and, in my working life as head of our public sector practice, I see these sort of things day-in-day-out but to say that there is no room for massive savings in public sector expenditure in the UK is astonishingly ignorant.
He's a . Who has shat on his electoral doorstep the past 4 years, he hasn't got a hope in hell of getting in next time.
hS2 and ridiculous house building schemes, ruining thousands of villages and towns all around UK, all subsidised by the same people who's lives they will blight.
And yet, will his leafy little village and mansion be affected by any of it.....my cock it will.
fking do one Dave you tt.
. Who has shat on his electoral doorstep the past 4 years, he hasn't got a hope in hell of getting in next time. hS2 and ridiculous house building schemes, ruining thousands of villages and towns all around UK, all subsidised by the same people who's lives they will blight.
And yet, will his leafy little village and mansion be affected by any of it.....my cock it will.
f
king do one Dave you tt. RichB said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
There was almost no ideology - it was more like a budget speech in many ways - just a long list of commitments should they win the next election
The Central theme was "get the economy right and you'll be able to have a better job, a better home, better healthcare, better education for your kids and more money in your pocket"
I've voted Tory all my life but explain to me why he has not already done any of this? Doesn't have to wait until he's, possibly, re-elected. The Central theme was "get the economy right and you'll be able to have a better job, a better home, better healthcare, better education for your kids and more money in your pocket"
Mostly the same old thing. Probably good if you are a Tory boy and were worried the conference would end as it started, but it was mostly rubbish, probably best summed up by his little rant on people from the UK who had gone to fight in Syria. Sure he got all passionate and angry, or at least pretended to be in a rehearsed speech, but it was the line about not letting people back in the UK that most clashed with reality and the weakness that is the Tories today that he was careful not to leave him self open to saying he would make British citizens stateless ( which he cant and wont do ), but did leave it rather vague saying he make stop people returning here; those people being non British or possibly shared citizenship - big deal, Dave. Shame you didn't talk on the fact an estimated 1000 odd have already left to fight and hundreds have already returned. Making a tough sounding speech were you have already failed doesn't cut it with me.
As for the tax cuts, they won't happen until, and if at all, the end of the next parliament.
As for the tax cuts, they won't happen until, and if at all, the end of the next parliament.
Convert said:
As the son of a miner, born and bred in the People's Republic of South Yorkshire, I have to agree that it was a fine speech.
I've never voted Tory in my life, historically Labour, recently UKIP.
I had planned to vote UKIP at the next GE, but in my area you could put a red tie on a chimp and it would get elected.
However I like the cut of Dave's Jib.
Since I don't fancy waking up next to Red Ed, I guess I'll be getting my blue tie out.
You'd change your voting intention on the deliverance of one speech and not action from a man who has had 4 years to deliver or at least have uttered previously some of his latest rhetoric? I've never voted Tory in my life, historically Labour, recently UKIP.
I had planned to vote UKIP at the next GE, but in my area you could put a red tie on a chimp and it would get elected.
However I like the cut of Dave's Jib.
Since I don't fancy waking up next to Red Ed, I guess I'll be getting my blue tie out.
And going by his past record, these actions may (probably will not) take place and be filled with excuses.
We don't want Ed, but we don't want CMD whether with Cleggie or without either.
What a growing number of us clamor for is 'change' ...and we won't get it with Dave. Guaranteed!
Rovinghawk said:
This statement is bks: how can it 'cost' the economy money to which it was never entitled?
If someone gets a car with a £30 VED instead of a car with a £450 VED, is this 'costing the economy' £420? These are fantasy numbers with no basis in fact.
Ok.. Corporation Tax is set at 20%, for argument's sake. If a company is paying 2%, then the government has LOST 18% of what it was ENTITLED TO.ks: how can it 'cost' the economy money to which it was never entitled?If someone gets a car with a £30 VED instead of a car with a £450 VED, is this 'costing the economy' £420? These are fantasy numbers with no basis in fact.
You could use your argument another way: I set up a business and take most of my payments cash-in-hand with no invoices and no record. My cash income is £40k per annum but my invoiced income is £12k per annum. I don't have to pay tax, or I pay a measly amount of tax on that £12k, and I get to pocket the cash. Have I robbed the government, or not? HMRC would probably think so, and if they found out, would probably quarter me for the offence!
It is fundamentally no different for a tax avoiding company like Vodafone, Starbucks or Amazon. Except their cash-in-hand job is a small company offshore (Luxembourg / Ireland) which is used to fabricate a loss in the UK business and take it off the books. So despite making profits of millions / billions here, they just pay a tiny percentage of it because what they declare is just a fraction of what they actually made.
So yes, avoidance COSTS the economy money, because it funnels profits away and in to tax havens. Furthermore, these companies typically pay below what is considered a living wage, so many of the workforce require state support. The state is effectively subsidising the tax avoider by paying for workers to be able to work, so it is a compounding problem!
There are many good articles on why austerity is a bad economic policy, especially at times of recession. I will link some if people are prepared to read.
dandarez said:
You'd change your voting intention on the deliverance of one speech and not action from a man who has had 4 years to deliver or at least have uttered previously some of his latest rhetoric?
And going by his past record, these actions may (probably will not) take place and be filled with excuses.
We don't want Ed, but we don't want CMD whether with Cleggie or without either.
What a growing number of us clamor for is 'change' ...and we won't get it with Dave. Guaranteed!
And how exactly do you think you are going to get change then ?And going by his past record, these actions may (probably will not) take place and be filled with excuses.
We don't want Ed, but we don't want CMD whether with Cleggie or without either.
What a growing number of us clamor for is 'change' ...and we won't get it with Dave. Guaranteed!
Don't tell me, vote for Farage, because he's got all the answers, right ?
dandarez said:
You'd change your voting intention on the deliverance of one speech and not action from a man who has had 4 years to deliver or at least have uttered previously some of his latest rhetoric?
And going by his past record, these actions may (probably will not) take place and be filled with excuses.
We don't want Ed, but we don't want CMD whether with Cleggie or without either.
What a growing number of us clamor for is 'change' ...and we won't get it with Dave. Guaranteed!
Quite right!And going by his past record, these actions may (probably will not) take place and be filled with excuses.
We don't want Ed, but we don't want CMD whether with Cleggie or without either.
What a growing number of us clamor for is 'change' ...and we won't get it with Dave. Guaranteed!
dandarez said:
Convert said:
As the son of a miner, born and bred in the People's Republic of South Yorkshire, I have to agree that it was a fine speech.
I've never voted Tory in my life, historically Labour, recently UKIP.
I had planned to vote UKIP at the next GE, but in my area you could put a red tie on a chimp and it would get elected.
However I like the cut of Dave's Jib.
Since I don't fancy waking up next to Red Ed, I guess I'll be getting my blue tie out.
You'd change your voting intention on the deliverance of one speech and not action from a man who has had 4 years to deliver or at least have uttered previously some of his latest rhetoric? I've never voted Tory in my life, historically Labour, recently UKIP.
I had planned to vote UKIP at the next GE, but in my area you could put a red tie on a chimp and it would get elected.
However I like the cut of Dave's Jib.
Since I don't fancy waking up next to Red Ed, I guess I'll be getting my blue tie out.
And going by his past record, these actions may (probably will not) take place and be filled with excuses.
We don't want Ed, but we don't want CMD whether with Cleggie or without either.
What a growing number of us clamor for is 'change' ...and we won't get it with Dave. Guaranteed!
We're heading in the right direction with the economy, immigration, the benefits system and unemployment. We just need a clear path out of the EU (or more correctly a choice whether we stay in or not).
You say you don't want CMD, Cleggie, or Red ED.
I take it you want Nigel?
I have in the past voted UKIP, but in my area it would just be a protest vote at the next GE. The Tories have a better chance of unseating Labour, so they will get my vote.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff