Tories the future (part1)

[JustAnotherLogin]

Gaspode said:

2. The UK is used to a level of privacy which isn't compatible with the Swiss approach. For example in Switzerland one of the ways they ensure that people pay the correct level of taxes is to make people's private tax records open for public scrutiny. So if your neighbour is swanning around in a Ferrari 458 whilst you know damn well he's a Police Sergeant you pop down to the local tax office and have a look to see what his declared income is. Then, if you think he's diddling his taxes, you dob him in to the authorities.

Somewhat off topic, but out of interest is there any evidence to suggest this decreases tax avoidance or number of fiddlers who are successfully prosecuted compared to other countries?

I just wonder how effective it is

[anonymous-user]

Fittster said:

Greg66 said:

Fittster said:

Can you explain why the Swiss system wouldn't work in the UK?

I'd be happy to debate the merits or otherwise of the Swiss system, but perhaps it would help the readership if you set out how the Swiss system works.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1435383/How-direct...

Which includes the statement: "citizens are entitled to put almost every law decided by their representatives to a general vote - if they want. For this to happen, members of the public need to gather 50,000 signatures (approximately one per cent of the electorate) within 100 days of the publication of a new law. In 96 out of 100 cases, no such referendum is triggered"

The Swiss have a representative government, just like we do. The direct democracy element of Swiss governance is a check and balance on the Government's decisions; one which appears not to get used very much. So ultimately you have a system used by one country in the world, that no one else has adopted, and which rarely gets used. I don't see a case, much less a compelling one, to adopt it here, and in any event the Swiss system is not governance by referenda, which is what I was talking about.

By the by, one percent of the electorate here would be 600,000 people - quite a few. But it might have been possible - perhaps even probable - that that many signatures could have been rallied to force a referendum on one of Osborne's austerity budgets. Would that have been a good idea?

[Gaspode]

JustAnotherLogin said:

Somewhat off topic, but out of interest is there any evidence to suggest this decreases tax avoidance or number of fiddlers who are successfully prosecuted compared to other countries?

I just wonder how effective it is

I have no actual evidence, but I worked in Switzerland for many years and the general view of my Swiss colleagues was that it was a very effective means of promoting conformance and social cohesion.

[Gaspode]

Greg66 said:

Personally, I would take a Robin Day/Paxman figure, and I would have a series of 1 to 1 interviews/cross-examinations. These would not be the Newsnight/Today programme fairly cheap shot interview, but a calm and rigorous examination of policies that the leaders would be presenting on behalf of their parties. I also thikn a similar exercise for the putative chancellors, home secs and foreign secs woudl be a good thing. The focus on the party leaders tends to obscure the fact that we don't have a Presidential style of Government.

All a pipe dream though. The broadcasters want the debates not because they are a good thing, but because they make good television (good in the sense of Jeremy Kyle/Jerry Springer). What I propose would appeal to a narrower cross-section of the audience, I suspect.

I think this is a good approach - especially if combined with a clear understanding by the politician involved that they would be expected to give clear answers to the questions, and that if they evaded the point or started talking about what the opposition would or wouldn't do their mike would be turned off or something.

[FiF]

Tories on a candidate purge?

Rumblings. Basically suggesting a purge of candidates out of favour with the leadership.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/articl...

http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2015/...

[jogon]

Two articles on the same day over in the Torygraph..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservat...

Question it seems for Dave is not if anymore but when.

[Axionknight]

I wouldn't lend any of them a tenner, but I'd buy them a few beers and have a chat to see which I liked the most. I wonder if any of them are a good laugh.

[JustAnotherLogin]

FiF in the UKIP thread made the remark that no-one was making the case for the Tories. Which is a fair point.

So lets start with this one.

They are the only party to have proposed a plan, with timescales and costings to fix the deficit. You may not like it, you can critcise them for not keeping to it because of the Euro-slump, but as far as I know they are the only ones to have a published a plan

One could say they have an advantage because they have access to more data. But of course the Tories published such a plan before they were in power as part of their manifesto.

I agree that others may still publish such a plan. But I wouldn't put money on it.

Furthermore, the Tories have a track record of improving the deficit. No other party does (and in Labour's case has a track record of exactly the opposite).

Given that either the Tories or Labour will form the rump of the next parliament (barring a turn-around of unheard of proportions), then that is more than enough justification for voting Tory. Frankly, given the current state of govt finances that is the most important basis for a decision in my view

[Gaspode]

2.6% growth of the economy in 2014 is a fair achievement too, I would say.

[don4l]

JustAnotherLogin said:

FiF in the UKIP thread made the remark that no-one was making the case for the Tories. Which is a fair point.

So lets start with this one.

They are the only party to have proposed a plan, with timescales and costings to fix the deficit. You may not like it, you can critcise them for not keeping to it because of the Euro-slump, but as far as I know they are the only ones to have a published a plan

One could say they have an advantage because they have access to more data. But of course the Tories published such a plan before they were in power as part of their manifesto.

I agree that others may still publish such a plan. But I wouldn't put money on it.

Furthermore, the Tories have a track record of improving the deficit. No other party does (and in Labour's case has a track record of exactly the opposite).

Given that either the Tories or Labour will form the rump of the next parliament (barring a turn-around of unheard of proportions), then that is more than enough justification for voting Tory. Frankly, given the current state of govt finances that is the most important basis for a decision in my view

What effect have the Tories had on the national debt?

I'm a bit gobsmacked that you would think of supporting a party who have doubled the national debt.

About 8% of your tax is used to pay off the interest. It was only 4% when Labour left office.

Dave Cameron is not Margaret Thatcher.

[FiF]

Even Margaret had enough sense to keep the police on side.

Permitting the blowing of 1 billion on overseas aid, just to meet some arbitrary target, when there are unpaid volunteers working at crime scenes and forensics.

Not in my name.

That's just one very small part. Priorities are wrong.

Then there's the greenest government malarkey and the great windmill shambles. On the day when the load on the national grid was the highest of the winter, wind farms produced 0.75% of our national demand at one point.

Monday 19 th January 5.00-5:30pm demand 52.54 Gigawatts
Wind produced 0.573GW just over 1%

At one point on Monday it fell to 0.354 GW 0.75% of the demand at that point.

link

Incompetent Govt, unrealistic targets, unachievable expectations. This is costing lives due to fuel poverty.

[JustAnotherLogin]

don4l said:

What effect have the Tories had on the national debt?

I'm a bit gobsmacked that you would think of supporting a party who have doubled the national debt.

About 8% of your tax is used to pay off the interest. It was only 4% when Labour left office.

Dave Cameron is not Margaret Thatcher.

He got left with a bigger problem in this respect. Like I said, you can criticise their plan, but they are the only ones to publish one.

The others all just ignore it, forget it or use weasel words.

[ukwill]

don4l said:

What effect have the Tories had on the national debt?

I'm a bit gobsmacked that you would think of supporting a party who have doubled the national debt.

About 8% of your tax is used to pay off the interest. It was only 4% when Labour left office.

Dave Cameron is not Margaret Thatcher.

Whichever party had won the last election, the national debt was going to pretty much double during this parliament. Such is the consequences of a record peacetime deficit.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/5202037/...

Notice the date of that article. And that was based on a budget that inferred a growth rate that was hilariously incorrect. Unfortunately.

In fact, based on his last budget, Labour would have borrowed more during this parliament.

[p1esk]

ukwill said:

don4l said:

What effect have the Tories had on the national debt?

I'm a bit gobsmacked that you would think of supporting a party who have doubled the national debt.

About 8% of your tax is used to pay off the interest. It was only 4% when Labour left office.

Dave Cameron is not Margaret Thatcher.

Whichever party had won the last election, the national debt was going to pretty much double during this parliament. Such is the consequences of a record peacetime deficit.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/5202037/...

Notice the date of that article. And that was based on a budget that inferred a growth rate that was hilariously incorrect. Unfortunately.

In fact, based on his last budget, Labour would have borrowed more during this parliament.

Do we mean deficit, rather than national debt.

[Yazar]

Boris has today proven that he has what it takes to become a Tory leader


He said a few months ago he would not pay the 'outrageous' US tax demand ( link)

Boris said:

Asked whether he would pay the bill, Johnson initially avoided the question. But when it was put to him a second time, he replied: “No is the answer. I think it’s absolutely outrageous. Why should I? I think, you know, I’m not a … I, you know, I haven’t lived in the United States for, you know, well, since I was five years old … I pay the lion’s share of my tax, I pay my taxes to the full in the United Kingdom where I live and work.”

but has now paid it ( link)

[ukwill]

p1esk said:

ukwill said:

don4l said:

What effect have the Tories had on the national debt?

I'm a bit gobsmacked that you would think of supporting a party who have doubled the national debt.

About 8% of your tax is used to pay off the interest. It was only 4% when Labour left office.

Dave Cameron is not Margaret Thatcher.

Whichever party had won the last election, the national debt was going to pretty much double during this parliament. Such is the consequences of a record peacetime deficit.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/5202037/...

Notice the date of that article. And that was based on a budget that inferred a growth rate that was hilariously incorrect. Unfortunately.

In fact, based on his last budget, Labour would have borrowed more during this parliament.

Do we mean deficit, rather than national debt.

I don't know who you're referring to, but I what I wrote is what I meant.

[p1esk]

ukwill said:

p1esk said:

ukwill said:

don4l said:

What effect have the Tories had on the national debt?

I'm a bit gobsmacked that you would think of supporting a party who have doubled the national debt.

About 8% of your tax is used to pay off the interest. It was only 4% when Labour left office.

Dave Cameron is not Margaret Thatcher.

Whichever party had won the last election, the national debt was going to pretty much double during this parliament. Such is the consequences of a record peacetime deficit.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/5202037/...

Notice the date of that article. And that was based on a budget that inferred a growth rate that was hilariously incorrect. Unfortunately.

In fact, based on his last budget, Labour would have borrowed more during this parliament.

Do we mean deficit, rather than national debt.

I don't know who you're referring to, but I what I wrote is what I meant.

I was replying to you, because I thought the wrong term had been used. Although I could believe that the deficit might double within the timespan of a parliament, I couldn't imagine the debt (which is already a quite astronomical figure) doubling.

[FiF]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25944653

UK debt and deficit: All you need to know.

Starter for 10.







http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt

Current UK National Debt Numbers
Gross National Debt
FY 2015* £1.36 trillion
FY 2014 £1.26 trillion
FY 2013 £1.19 trillion
FY 2012 £1.10 trillion
FY 2011 £0.91 trillion
FY 2010 £0.76 trillion
FY 2009 £0.62 trillion
FY 2008 £0.53 trillion

• estimate HM Treasury

[p1esk]

OK thanks, FiF.

Apologies to ukwill, it looks as if he was right after all, but I'm just horrified at the numbers.

[ukwill]

No probs. I couldn't quite work out if you were replying to me or the poster to whom I was originally responding.