politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Will this win back the Con to UKIP switchers Dave needs to

CarlottaVance said:

FalseFlag said:

No, UKIP is about the fact English people will shortly be a minority in their own country due to the actions of the media political elite, something the EU is only tangentially connected to.

Define 'shortly'.......

Comfortably within my lifetime.

FluffyThoughts said:

radsatser said:

@ CarlottaVance

Are we required to prioritise them.. How quaint, how original!!

Just because the Conservative, Labour and the LibDems prioritise taking £12 billion away from the British taxpayer, vulnerable people, the disabled, the military, infrastructure, flooded areas, disease treatments, border control etc, etc, etc, and throw it about like confetti in Overseas Aid in the direction of countries with nuclear weapons and space programmes.

I'll answer your question.

1. The interests of the British people
2. The interests of the British people
3. The interests of the British people
4. The interests of the British people

....in no particular order.

There is no such concept of "British" - outwith the Army - as we are not an identifiable concept:

Our law is English (save Scotland's knuckle-draggers) and our nations divided. "British" may be a moniker for antagonists who enjoy our benefits but seek to undermine our socitities (c.f. sven) but they should not be a model that any cogent being would wish to emulate.

LOL, Little Englander puts forward his cleaning views, don't forget behind teh fridge

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

TGOHF said:

CarlottaVance said:

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

Look. I and I suspect most UKIP voters wouldn't believe call me Dave if he ran round a crowded room shouting FIRE. Even if I could smell smoke.

Who would you believe?

Just Saint Nigel I think.

The Nats didn't believe he would hold a Sindy referendum. Now they just don't believe the result.

Yes, the Nats & the Kippers show the same touching allegiance to their (different) one true faiths - but prefer 'truth' to 'facts'......

All that from a servile Tory fan boy loser who wants the peasants kept in their place.

Turnip

Shock , Tory accepts truth

Charles said:

CarlottaVance said:

Bermuda has said it is "surprised and disappointed" to be included a list of places Ed Miliband says Labour would target in a tax avoidance clampdown.

Mr Miliband wants British territories such as Bermuda to be internationally blacklisted if they do not compile public registers of offshore firms.

But Bermuda's government said it had operated a central registry of companies since the 1940s.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31231113

He really is into self-harming isn't he.

Reform of the tax havens is a good thing: transparency and sunlight is what we need (and - as Osborne was rather surprised by - penalty rates of tax where sunlight is not wanted: I'm think here of the 15% annual mansion taxes on houses in corporate envelopes).

But the way to do is it is the way the Coalition has approached it: robust negotiation with our international partners to make sure that the Swiss, the Dutch, the Luxembourgers, the Lichensteinians (does anyone know the right term?) etc. all open up their tax havens at the same time and manner. It's not by knee capping our Crown Dependencies to make a political point.

hmmm

While you debate the point, HMG continues to suffer lost revenues at a time when it needs them. the lost revenues are picked up by everyone else. If say industrial scale tax avoidance costs £10bn a year ( a guess!) how long are you prepared to let it roll before you do something ? And why should those who play their taxes continue to subsidise those who don't ?

Peter_the_Punter said:

@Barnesian

Yes, that's a characteristically incisive piece by Antifrank.

The magic figure is 295. Below that, Cameron cannot expect to form any kind of Government. It's a figure I arrived at by a different route to Antifrank, so natural I'm pleased to note PB's TOTY in-waiting has the same in mind.

And how does the price of that compare with the price on a referendum (6/4 according to the OP)?

logical_song said:

Well at least Mr Mid-Beds helped detoxify the Tory party by leaving it.

Does he really speak for many in UKIP in wanting economic chaos?

I don't want economic chaos, but I do want some realism. I'd always been sympathetic to Ukip, but what really did it for me with the Tories is Help to Buy. I don't have a problem with high house prices, and even if I think they are overpriced all that matters is the market and what people are prepared to pay. But I think it's disgusting that the Tories have tried to prop up the market through Help to Buy.

Ultimately it won't matter who wins the election. They all want to carry on kicking the can down the road and as long as they can raise money they'll be fine. But the day will come when they run out of road.

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

TGOHF said:

CarlottaVance said:

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

Look. I and I suspect most UKIP voters wouldn't believe call me Dave if he ran round a crowded room shouting FIRE. Even if I could smell smoke.

Who would you believe?

Just Saint Nigel I think.

The Nats didn't believe he would hold a Sindy referendum. Now they just don't believe the result.

Yes, the Nats & the Kippers show the same touching allegiance to their (different) one true faiths - but prefer 'truth' to 'facts'......

All that from a servile Tory fan boy loser who wants the peasants kept in their place.

Turnip

Shock , Tory accepts truth

Shock! Nat misses point.

DavidL said:

Am I alone in my despair that the Tories still think talking about the EU is ever the answer to anything?

Apart from how to lose of course.

No.

Tristram Hunt really does have some of the Father Jack about him when its comes to nuns

@catherine_mayer: Respite for Tristram? Nun from Andrew #marrshow

@MrJacHart: Can an unqualified Nun be a good teacher asks #Marr - urrrm, eh, well, oh answers Tristram Hunt #MarrShow

TGOHF said:

Have the Kippers decided the reasons why Cameron's 2016 referendum is dastardly but Farage's 2015 referendum is worthy of a Nobel prize ?

Yes Cameron is billy bullshitting and Farage is
Telling the truth.

Theuniondivvie said:

TGOHF said:

CarlottaVance said:

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

Look. I and I suspect most UKIP voters wouldn't believe call me Dave if he ran round a crowded room shouting FIRE. Even if I could smell smoke.

Who would you believe?

The Nats didn't believe he would hold a Sindy referendum. Now they just don't believe the result.

I certainly remember at the time ever more convoluted reasons why there wouldn't be a referendum, but they weren't coming from PB 'Nats'. You PB Loyalists and your memory problems...

I'm sure the PB Scottish National Socialists will show us all how to overcome bad memory.

malcolmg said:

Alanbrooke said:

Charles said:

CarlottaVance said:

Bermuda has said it is "surprised and disappointed" to be included a list of places Ed Miliband says Labour would target in a tax avoidance clampdown.

Mr Miliband wants British territories such as Bermuda to be internationally blacklisted if they do not compile public registers of offshore firms.

But Bermuda's government said it had operated a central registry of companies since the 1940s.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31231113

He really is into self-harming isn't he.

Reform of the tax havens is a good thing: transparency and sunlight is what we need (and - as Osborne was rather surprised by - penalty rates of tax where sunlight is not wanted: I'm think here of the 15% annual mansion taxes on houses in corporate envelopes).

But the way to do is it is the way the Coalition has approached it: robust negotiation with our international partners to make sure that the Swiss, the Dutch, the Luxembourgers, the Lichensteinians (does anyone know the right term?) etc. all open up their tax havens at the same time and manner. It's not by knee capping our Crown Dependencies to make a political point.

hmmm

While you debate the point, HMG continues to suffer lost revenues at a time when it needs them. the lost revenues are picked up by everyone else. If say industrial scale tax avoidance costs £10bn a year ( a guess!) how long are you prepared to let it roll before you do something ? And why should those who play their taxes continue to subsidise those who don't ?

Morning Alan, Hope you and family are well

Yeah malc. crystal clear day in Warwickshire though bitter cold.

I assume you survived the great cull ?

FalseFlag said:

CarlottaVance said:

FalseFlag said:

No, UKIP is about the fact English people will shortly be a minority in their own country due to the actions of the media political elite, something the EU is only tangentially connected to.

Define 'shortly'.......

Comfortably within my lifetime.

Since the 2011 census showed 84% of English residents England born, you clearly have a very long life expectancy!

Turn's out the "loons and fruitcakes" are rather important to Dave's fate afterall?

Alanbrooke said:

malcolmg said:

Alanbrooke said:

Charles said:

CarlottaVance said:

Bermuda has said it is "surprised and disappointed" to be included a list of places Ed Miliband says Labour would target in a tax avoidance clampdown.

Mr Miliband wants British territories such as Bermuda to be internationally blacklisted if they do not compile public registers of offshore firms.

But Bermuda's government said it had operated a central registry of companies since the 1940s.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31231113

He really is into self-harming isn't he.

Reform of the tax havens is a good thing: transparency and sunlight is what we need (and - as Osborne was rather surprised by - penalty rates of tax where sunlight is not wanted: I'm think here of the 15% annual mansion taxes on houses in corporate envelopes).

But the way to do is it is the way the Coalition has approached it: robust negotiation with our international partners to make sure that the Swiss, the Dutch, the Luxembourgers, the Lichensteinians (does anyone know the right term?) etc. all open up their tax havens at the same time and manner. It's not by knee capping our Crown Dependencies to make a political point.

hmmm

While you debate the point, HMG continues to suffer lost revenues at a time when it needs them. the lost revenues are picked up by everyone else. If say industrial scale tax avoidance costs £10bn a year ( a guess!) how long are you prepared to let it roll before you do something ? And why should those who play their taxes continue to subsidise those who don't ?

Morning Alan, Hope you and family are well

Yeah malc. crystal clear day in Warwickshire though bitter cold.

I assume you survived the great cull ?

Yes I did Alan, our area is doing well so almost no impact to us, I even got promoted ( almost as it is in the sausage machine for HR approvals and they are a bit busy ).
Not nice for a lot of people mind you , though there were lots of volunteers.
I live in hope they will offer it to me but unlikely.

Assume your wife missed it.

Fraser Nelson:

Socialism fever is spreading. This time last year, Ed Miliband looked to be on course for 10 Downing St for the simple reason that the right in Britain had been split (by Ukip) while the left stood united for the first time since 1983. Lefty LibDems had returned to Labour and it seemed that Miliband was the bad leader of a massive block of votes. Now, things have changed. The left is unravelling too: Labour is losing votes to the SNP in the north and the Greens in the south.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/02/the-unravelling-of-the-left-continues-as-rmt-president-joins-the-greens/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Alanbrooke said:

Charles said:

CarlottaVance said:

Bermuda has said it is "surprised and disappointed" to be included a list of places Ed Miliband says Labour would target in a tax avoidance clampdown.

Mr Miliband wants British territories such as Bermuda to be internationally blacklisted if they do not compile public registers of offshore firms.

But Bermuda's government said it had operated a central registry of companies since the 1940s.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31231113

He really is into self-harming isn't he.

Reform of the tax havens is a good thing: transparency and sunlight is what we need (and - as Osborne was rather surprised by - penalty rates of tax where sunlight is not wanted: I'm think here of the 15% annual mansion taxes on houses in corporate envelopes).

But the way to do is it is the way the Coalition has approached it: robust negotiation with our international partners to make sure that the Swiss, the Dutch, the Luxembourgers, the Lichensteinians (does anyone know the right term?) etc. all open up their tax havens at the same time and manner. It's not by knee capping our Crown Dependencies to make a political point.

hmmm

While you debate the point, HMG continues to suffer lost revenues at a time when it needs them. the lost revenues are picked up by everyone else. If say industrial scale tax avoidance costs £10bn a year ( a guess!) how long are you prepared to let it roll before you do something ? And why should those who play their taxes continue to subsidise those who don't ?

Mr. Brooke, if you have industries then you will have industrial scale tax avoidance.

Tax avoidance sounds wicked but all it actually means is paying every last penny of tax that one is obliged to but not a penny more. Company directors, of course, have a legal duty to run their businesses in the best interests of the shareholders. They will therefore ensure that they pay all the tax that they have to.

If HMG think that some companies or individuals are not paying what they should then HMG has the tools and powers to investigate any such tax evasion. If HMG think that companies and individuals are playing by the rules but still not contributing enough then they should change the rules and or rates.

To complain that someone is obeying they law, and thus in some way being unfair, is a bit pathetic.

Alanbrooke said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TGOHF said:

CarlottaVance said:

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

Look. I and I suspect most UKIP voters wouldn't believe call me Dave if he ran round a crowded room shouting FIRE. Even if I could smell smoke.

Who would you believe?

The Nats didn't believe he would hold a Sindy referendum. Now they just don't believe the result.

I certainly remember at the time ever more convoluted reasons why there wouldn't be a referendum, but they weren't coming from PB 'Nats'. You PB Loyalists and your memory problems...

I'm sure the PB Scottish National Socialists will show us all how to overcome bad memory.

They tend to get upset when that is mentioned.......

Alanbrooke said:

Charles said:

CarlottaVance said:

Bermuda has said it is "surprised and disappointed" to be included a list of places Ed Miliband says Labour would target in a tax avoidance clampdown.

Mr Miliband wants British territories such as Bermuda to be internationally blacklisted if they do not compile public registers of offshore firms.

But Bermuda's government said it had operated a central registry of companies since the 1940s.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31231113

He really is into self-harming isn't he.

Reform of the tax havens is a good thing: transparency and sunlight is what we need (and - as Osborne was rather surprised by - penalty rates of tax where sunlight is not wanted: I'm think here of the 15% annual mansion taxes on houses in corporate envelopes).

But the way to do is it is the way the Coalition has approached it: robust negotiation with our international partners to make sure that the Swiss, the Dutch, the Luxembourgers, the Lichensteinians (does anyone know the right term?) etc. all open up their tax havens at the same time and manner. It's not by knee capping our Crown Dependencies to make a political point.

hmmm

While you debate the point, HMG continues to suffer lost revenues at a time when it needs them. the lost revenues are picked up by everyone else. If say industrial scale tax avoidance costs £10bn a year ( a guess!) how long are you prepared to let it roll before you do something ? And why should those who play their taxes continue to subsidise those who don't ?

The much bigger number is corporate tax planning.

I don't know enough to determine how to make it work in practice, but in principle if the economic substance of a transaction occurs in the UK (e.g. customer and fulfillment of shipping, or coffee purchase) then it should be taxed in the UK.

I'd also look at making intragroup payments (e.g. for debt) non tax deductible, and possibly the same with intragroup royalties. Where there are real services provided - e.g. management or purchase/roasting of bean - then the intermediary company should be able to make reasonable profit, but HMRC should have the right to challenge the rates with the defendant required to prove they are arms length market rates

radsatser said:

If you need me to explain at approaching 5 mins to the political midnight that the UKIP priorities, are simply the priorities of increasing numbers of British people, then you have lost already from your apathy.

Once again you can't do it.......

Alanbrooke said:

malcolmg said:

Alanbrooke said:

malcolmg said:

Alanbrooke said:

Charles said:

CarlottaVance said:

Bermuda has said it is "surprised and disappointed" to be included a list of places Ed Miliband says Labour would target in a tax avoidance clampdown.

Mr Miliband wants British territories such as Bermuda to be internationally blacklisted if they do not compile public registers of offshore firms.

But Bermuda's government said it had operated a central registry of companies since the 1940s.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31231113

He really is into self-harming isn't he.

Reform of the tax havens is a good thing: transparency and sunlight is what we need (and - as Osborne was rather surprised by - penalty rates of tax where sunlight is not wanted: I'm think here of the 15% annual mansion taxes on houses in corporate envelopes).

But the way to do is it is the way the Coalition has approached it: robust negotiation with our international partners to make sure that the Swiss, the Dutch, the Luxembourgers, the Lichensteinians (does anyone know the right term?) etc. all open up their tax havens at the same time and manner. It's not by knee capping our Crown Dependencies to make a political point.

hmmm

While you debate the point, HMG continues to suffer lost revenues at a time when it needs them. the lost revenues are picked up by everyone else. If say industrial scale tax avoidance costs £10bn a year ( a guess!) how long are you prepared to let it roll before you do something ? And why should those who play their taxes continue to subsidise those who don't ?

Morning Alan, Hope you and family are well

Yeah malc. crystal clear day in Warwickshire though bitter cold.

I assume you survived the great cull ?

Yes I did Alan, our area is doing well so almost no impact to us, I even got promoted ( almost as it is in the sausage machine for HR approvals and they are a bit busy ).
Not nice for a lot of people mind you , though there were lots of volunteers.
I live in hope they will offer it to me but unlikely.

Assume your wife missed it.

Well she came home singing Gloria Gaynor "I will survivie" so I think that's a yes :-)

Good to hear Alan

nigel4england said:

Alanbrooke said:

nigel4england said:

Alanbrooke said:

nigel4england said:

DavidL said:

Am I alone in my despair that the Tories still think talking about the EU is ever the answer to anything?

Apart from how to lose of course.

They could not talk about it I suppose, that would be an interesting way to lose.

They have lttle to gain by talking about it.

Kippers will say they don't believe Cameron and never will.
Disaffected righties will say so what, that's not the reason I'm not voting blue, you're out of touch.
Everyone else will roll their eyes and say pointless banging on about Europe.

Pointless banging on about something that has affected our lives so drastically for the last 40 years?

Good luck with that strategy.

I'm afraid the Europe stuff however you look at it has a prime salience for a minority of the electorate. So it that's where we are UKIP need to redouble their efforts.

Personally Europe is about point 5 or 6 on my list of important things, Cameron promising a referendum isn't going to make me vote for him.

Can you let us know what points 1 to 4 are on your list please.

Even better , will Carlotta give his/her points rather than just pointing at people, lets have the nasty party views from the horse's mouth so to speak..
I will not hold my breath whilst awaiting the input.

charles

"edit: but I agree with @rcs1000 - the most important thing is to increase the supply of housing. I'd also introduce an annual property tax on all residential housing."

Might help if you took VAT of repairs and extensions to the existing housing stock.

There is no VAT on new housing, so why on the existing stock ?

Alanbrooke said:

My point with Charles is that HMG does indeed have the powers you mention but is choosing to kick the issue into the long international grass. Is Liechtenstein really going to vote openness in taxation - colour me cyncial ?

Furthermore since the FD of UK plc Mr G Osborne also has an obligation to run the country in the best interests of his shareholder ( us ) then he should damn well be closing the tax holes and collecting the cash. That's his job.

Well, Osborne has done deals with Switzerland and Luxembourg, so he's making progress.

Liechtenstein is, I'd agree, the murkiest cess-pit in Europe. So to judge Osborne solely on whether he drains that particular swamp is a little unfair.

Overall he's making good progress - just google "Ingenious Media HMRC" (without the inverted commas) for an example. Slightly surprised you seem to have missed it in the news.

Yorkcity said:

charles

"edit: but I agree with @rcs1000 - the most important thing is to increase the supply of housing. I'd also introduce an annual property tax on all residential housing."

Might help if you took VAT of repairs and extensions to the existing housing stock.

There is no VAT on new housing, so why on the existing stock ?

Or maybe put VAT on new housing stock?

Charles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Charles said:

CarlottaVance said:

Bermuda has said it is "surprised and disappointed" to be included a list of places Ed Miliband says Labour would target in a tax avoidance clampdown.

Mr Miliband wants British territories such as Bermuda to be internationally blacklisted if they do not compile public registers of offshore firms.

But Bermuda's government said it had operated a central registry of companies since the 1940s.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31231113

He really is into self-harming isn't he.

Reform of the tax havens is a good thing: transparency and sunlight is what we need (and - as Osborne was rather surprised by - penalty rates of tax where sunlight is not wanted: I'm think here of the 15% annual mansion taxes on houses in corporate envelopes).

But the way to do is it is the way the Coalition has approached it: robust negotiation with our international partners to make sure that the Swiss, the Dutch, the Luxembourgers, the Lichensteinians (does anyone know the right term?) etc. all open up their tax havens at the same time and manner. It's not by knee capping our Crown Dependencies to make a political point.

hmmm

While you debate the point, HMG continues to suffer lost revenues at a time when it needs them. the lost revenues are picked up by everyone else. If say industrial scale tax avoidance costs £10bn a year ( a guess!) how long are you prepared to let it roll before you do something ? And why should those who play their taxes continue to subsidise those who don't ?

The much bigger number is corporate tax planning.

I don't know enough to determine how to make it work in practice, but in principle if the economic substance of a transaction occurs in the UK (e.g. customer and fulfillment of shipping, or coffee purchase) then it should be taxed in the UK.

I'd also look at making intragroup payments (e.g. for debt) non tax deductible, and possibly the same with intragroup royalties. Where there are real services provided - e.g. management or purchase/roasting of bean - then the intermediary company should be able to make reasonable profit, but HMRC should have the right to challenge the rates with the defendant required to prove they are arms length market rates

How about a quick and dirty fix for some of it ?

HMRC say they will issue licences for tax accountants and will only deal with licenced accountants. As part of the licence you have to submit accounts within the letter and spirit of the UK tax system. Dodgy stuff which requires lots of corporate lawyers and which the public purse then has to fork out equally on lawyers gets the submitting accountants licence suspended .

You'd quickly find agressive tax schemes would dry up and more revenue is collected.

Charles said:

tlg86 said:

But I think it's disgusting that the Tories have tried to prop up the market through Help to Buy.

I think most people recognised that Help to Buy was a pretty shitty thing.

But the problem was that if you didn't do it, then you would have an entire generation who simply couldn't afford to buy: perpetuating the generational split in wealth.

Additionally - although it's getting better slowly - a house price crash in 2010 would have killed a lot of banks.

edit: but I agree with @rcs1000 - the most important thing is to increase the supply of housing. I'd also introduce an annual property tax on all residential housing.

Maybe I'm incredibly naive but personally I think that HBOS, RBS and Northern Rock should not have been saved. As long as we bail out financial institutions what incentive is there for them to behave responsibly.

On the building of more properties there's an interesting case in Woking concerning the redevelopment of Sheerwater. A housing estate was developed in the 1950s and many of the properties are still council owned. Recently it's been subject to a major redevelopment which is seeing people losing their (perfectly good) homes to make way for high density housing. Unsurprisingly the residents are angry and I don't blame them for being so.

As for taxing property, I'm fine with that. But I think it should be targeted at second homes and buy to let. But let's be honest, it's not going to happen simply because so many politicians have second properties.

Charles said:

Yorkcity said:

charles

"edit: but I agree with @rcs1000 - the most important thing is to increase the supply of housing. I'd also introduce an annual property tax on all residential housing."

Might help if you took VAT of repairs and extensions to the existing housing stock.

There is no VAT on new housing, so why on the existing stock ?

Or maybe put VAT on new housing stock?

True but at least equalize it.

Alanbrooke said:

How about a quick and dirty fix for some of it ?

HMRC say they will issue licences for tax accountants and will only deal with licenced accountants. As part of the licence you have to submit accounts within the letter and spirit of the UK tax system. Dodgy stuff which requires lots of corporate lawyers and which the public purse then has to fork out equally on lawyers gets the submitting accountants licence suspended .

You'd quickly find agressive tax schemes would dry up and more revenue is collected.

In theory scheme have to be pre-approved.

I don't really like the idea of licenses for firms because the government would find it too easy to suspend them on a pretext. Arthur Andersen, though, is a good example of how the market can operate effectively at that level.

But I'd have no issue with the equivalent of the FCA register that measures "fitness to practice". One of the most heartening things was that everyone I spoke to absolutely agreed that terminating the license of that bloke from Blackrock who dodged £42,000 worth of train fares was absolutely the right thing to do

DavidL said:

Am I alone in my despair that the Tories still think talking about the EU is ever the answer to anything?

Apart from how to lose of course.

Its because the Notting Hill dinner party crowd don't understand, and don't even want to understand, why they've been losing votes to UKIP.

Its easier to convince themselves that some nuance about the EU is all that's required.

The Dartmouth Park dinner party crowd have a similar closed mindset about Labour's loss of votes to UKIP.

As does the Hampstead Town ** dinner party crowd about the LibDems loss of votes to UKIP.

** Or wherever upper middle class metropolitan LibDems gather for their dinner parties.

tlg86 said:

Charles said:

tlg86 said:

But I think it's disgusting that the Tories have tried to prop up the market through Help to Buy.

I think most people recognised that Help to Buy was a pretty shitty thing.

But the problem was that if you didn't do it, then you would have an entire generation who simply couldn't afford to buy: perpetuating the generational split in wealth.

Additionally - although it's getting better slowly - a house price crash in 2010 would have killed a lot of banks.

edit: but I agree with @rcs1000 - the most important thing is to increase the supply of housing. I'd also introduce an annual property tax on all residential housing.

Maybe I'm incredibly naive but personally I think that HBOS, RBS and Northern Rock should not have been saved. As long as we bail out financial institutions what incentive is there for them to behave responsibly.

On the building of more properties there's an interesting case in Woking concerning the redevelopment of Sheerwater. A housing estate was developed in the 1950s and many of the properties are still council owned. Recently it's been subject to a major redevelopment which is seeing people losing their (perfectly good) homes to make way for high density housing. Unsurprisingly the residents are angry and I don't blame them for being so.

As for taxing property, I'm fine with that. But I think it should be targeted at second homes and buy to let. But let's be honest, it's not going to happen simply because so many politicians have second properties.

On saving those banks: you're right , they were dreadfully badly run. And shareholders were largely wiped out, which was absolutely right and proper. But if you had let them go bankrupt then the entire country would have sunk: there are well run banks, but they simply didn't have the capacity to supply the banks.

On residential property, in theory second homes and BTL are already subject to capital gains tax, which is right. I'm a fan of property tax because it is a wide tax base, it is broadly fair, it raises a lot of money at a low rate, it is simple and hard to avoid and non-residents pay a decent chunk of it. I'd use the money raised to reduce much more damaging taxes.

Theuniondivvie said:

Alanbrooke said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TGOHF said:

CarlottaVance said:

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

Look. I and I suspect most UKIP voters wouldn't believe call me Dave if he ran round a crowded room shouting FIRE. Even if I could smell smoke.

Who would you believe?

The Nats didn't believe he would hold a Sindy referendum. Now they just don't believe the result.

I certainly remember at the time ever more convoluted reasons why there wouldn't be a referendum, but they weren't coming from PB 'Nats'. You PB Loyalists and your memory problems...

I'm sure the PB Scottish National Socialists will show us all how to overcome bad memory.

Repartee a bit stale there AB, long night was it?

Speaking of Loyalists, National Socialists and somewhat faulty memories, here's a story that wraps them all up in one delicious package.

'Orange Order hired Auschwitz sceptic to work on referendum campaign

THE Orange Order hired a Holocaust sceptic to help it defend the Union, it has emerged.
The Grand Orange Lodge of Scotland paid almost £2000 to right-wing blogger Alistair McConnachie for "social media services" during the referendum, according to official spending returns. Glasgow-based McConnachie, 49, was barred from Ukip for saying he did not accept that the Nazis used gas chambers to kill Jews at Auschwitz.'

http://tinyurl.com/mdna8zo

Sheesh divvie have you spent the last 20 minutes trawling the internet for that ?

For every OO holocast denier I'll find you 50 flying an Israeli flag in East Belfast.

I thought you were simply trying a bit of hot Indy action since you'd had a spat on your "Loyalist" spelling last week. It almost seemed un-neighbourly not to get the party going.

Pulpstar said:

Charles said:

HurstLlama said:

<

Mr. Brooke, if you have industries then you will have industrial scale tax avoidance.

Tax avoidance sounds wicked but all it actually means is paying every last penny of tax that one is obliged to but not a penny more. Company directors, of course, have a legal duty to run their businesses in the best interests of the shareholders. They will therefore ensure that they pay all the tax that they have to.

If HMG think that some companies or individuals are not paying what they should then HMG has the tools and powers to investigate any such tax evasion. If HMG think that companies and individuals are playing by the rules but still not contributing enough then they should change the rules and or rates.

To complain that someone is obeying they law, and thus in some way being unfair, is a bit pathetic.

I don't believe that minimising tax to the nth degree is in the best interests of shareholders, because it leads to an unhealthy economic climate and hostility to business.

Directors should look after all their stakeholders, in order to generate an attractive return for their shareholders over the long term.

At the heart of it is the Principal-Agent Problem, and if anyone comes up with a workable solution at the multi-national level they will make a fortune

What is this principle-agent problem ?

Principal-Agent

The directors of the company (the Agents) are supposed to run it in the interests of shareholders (Principals) but their incentives are not aligned.

At the most basic level, shareholders are interested in long-term capital value growth and dividends. Executives are more interested in short-term share price increases, so there is a tendency to under-invest in the business and use the surplus to buy back shares.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal–agent_problem

Mr. Richard, a sort-of related point: I was watching the Sky paper review the other night. It had Alex Deane, who used to work for Cameron a decade ago, and a lady (a royal reporter/historian, I think) whose name escapes me. They were discussing a 'story' about World of Warcraft crime leading to real world crime.

I don't play WoW, but as a (very casual) gamer, it did strike me as being a pair of blind people discussing Leonardo sketches. Likewise when they compared GTA crime to real-world crime and any potential link between the two.

Of course, I really like Skyrim. The only downside is that now I can't stop shouting at people.

tlg86 said:

logical_song said:

Well at least Mr Mid-Beds helped detoxify the Tory party by leaving it.

Does he really speak for many in UKIP in wanting economic chaos?

I don't want economic chaos, but I do want some realism. I'd always been sympathetic to Ukip, but what really did it for me with the Tories is Help to Buy. I don't have a problem with high house prices, and even if I think they are overpriced all that matters is the market and what people are prepared to pay. But I think it's disgusting that the Tories have tried to prop up the market through Help to Buy.

Ultimately it won't matter who wins the election. They all want to carry on kicking the can down the road and as long as they can raise money they'll be fine. But the day will come when they run out of road.

Osborneism is Brownism on steroids.

Of course Osborne and Cameron never saw anything wrong with Brown's economic strategy - "sharing the proceeds of growth" etc.

Alanbrooke said:

How about a quick and dirty fix for some of it ?

HMRC say they will issue licences for tax accountants and will only deal with licenced accountants. As part of the licence you have to submit accounts within the letter and spirit of the UK tax system. Dodgy stuff which requires lots of corporate lawyers and which the public purse then has to fork out equally on lawyers gets the submitting accountants licence suspended .

You'd quickly find agressive tax schemes would dry up and more revenue is collected.

One of the most aggressive groups of tax planners is within BP. How do you deal with them?

Alanbrooke said:

Sheesh divvie have you spent the last 20 minutes trawling the internet for that ?

Hey, the media comes to us now, no trawling required, it pops up on yer Kindle over the croissants.

another_richard said:

tlg86 said:

logical_song said:

Well at least Mr Mid-Beds helped detoxify the Tory party by leaving it.

Does he really speak for many in UKIP in wanting economic chaos?

I don't want economic chaos, but I do want some realism. I'd always been sympathetic to Ukip, but what really did it for me with the Tories is Help to Buy. I don't have a problem with high house prices, and even if I think they are overpriced all that matters is the market and what people are prepared to pay. But I think it's disgusting that the Tories have tried to prop up the market through Help to Buy.

Ultimately it won't matter who wins the election. They all want to carry on kicking the can down the road and as long as they can raise money they'll be fine. But the day will come when they run out of road.

Osborneism is Brownism on steroids.

Of course Osborne and Cameron never saw anything wrong with Brown's economic strategy - "sharing the proceeds of growth" etc.

Disagree with you AR, Osborneism is Brownismin second gear.

Much as I think GO is a useless pudding, he's still not as bad as GB.

Kellie "Little Frank" Moloney to stand for UKIP????

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/suncolumnists/guidofawkes/6327226/Nigel-Farage-eyes-up-Kellie-Maloney-as-Ukip-candidate.html?CMP=spklr-141647737-Editorial-TWITTER-TheSunNewspaper-20150208-Politics

I think this is risky for UKIP because back in the day Frank made some awkward comments about homosexuals which could be thrown back at Kellie.

I suppose he might make quite a good spanner to throw in the works of somewhere like Brighton though? Not sure. At all. Bizarre.

It turns out subsidising above-inflation rates of interest on savings for people who are disproportionately likely to vote is a very good thing. Who would have thought it?:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31241867

MarqueeMark said:

Alanbrooke said:

How about a quick and dirty fix for some of it ?

HMRC say they will issue licences for tax accountants and will only deal with licenced accountants. As part of the licence you have to submit accounts within the letter and spirit of the UK tax system. Dodgy stuff which requires lots of corporate lawyers and which the public purse then has to fork out equally on lawyers gets the submitting accountants licence suspended .

You'd quickly find agressive tax schemes would dry up and more revenue is collected.

One of the most aggressive groups of tax planners is within BP. How do you deal with them?

They'd still need a licence. No play no ball. If they are stupid impose a tax estimate on them and watch them argue for it back.

Alanbrooke said:

another_richard said:

tlg86 said:

logical_song said:

Well at least Mr Mid-Beds helped detoxify the Tory party by leaving it.

Does he really speak for many in UKIP in wanting economic chaos?

I don't want economic chaos, but I do want some realism. I'd always been sympathetic to Ukip, but what really did it for me with the Tories is Help to Buy. I don't have a problem with high house prices, and even if I think they are overpriced all that matters is the market and what people are prepared to pay. But I think it's disgusting that the Tories have tried to prop up the market through Help to Buy.

Ultimately it won't matter who wins the election. They all want to carry on kicking the can down the road and as long as they can raise money they'll be fine. But the day will come when they run out of road.

Osborneism is Brownism on steroids.

Of course Osborne and Cameron never saw anything wrong with Brown's economic strategy - "sharing the proceeds of growth" etc.

Disagree with you AR, Osborneism is Brownismin second gear.

Much as I think GO is a useless pudding, he's still not as bad as GB.

Osborne is presiding over a bigger UK current account deficit than Brown ever managed, or indeed anyone else.

Not to mention borrowing hundreds of billions more than he said he would, falling productivity, falling industrial production, rising inequality and directly subsidising house prices.

Even though the failure of Brown's economic strategy is there for all to see, Osborne is willing to repeat it in order to buy votes.

And thus another days headlines are born...

@TelePolitics: Labour's Tristram Hunt refuses six times to say nuns are good teachers http://t.co/SAsrxRHYd9

another_richard said:

Alanbrooke said:

another_richard said:

tlg86 said:

logical_song said:

Well at least Mr Mid-Beds helped detoxify the Tory party by leaving it.

Does he really speak for many in UKIP in wanting economic chaos?

I don't want economic chaos, but I do want some realism. I'd always been sympathetic to Ukip, but what really did it for me with the Tories is Help to Buy. I don't have a problem with high house prices, and even if I think they are overpriced all that matters is the market and what people are prepared to pay. But I think it's disgusting that the Tories have tried to prop up the market through Help to Buy.

Ultimately it won't matter who wins the election. They all want to carry on kicking the can down the road and as long as they can raise money they'll be fine. But the day will come when they run out of road.

Osborneism is Brownism on steroids.

Of course Osborne and Cameron never saw anything wrong with Brown's economic strategy - "sharing the proceeds of growth" etc.

Disagree with you AR, Osborneism is Brownismin second gear.

Much as I think GO is a useless pudding, he's still not as bad as GB.

Osborne is presiding over a bigger UK current account deficit than Brown ever managed, or indeed anyone else.

Not to mention borrowing hundreds of billions more than he said he would, falling productivity, falling industrial production, rising inequality and directly subsidising house prices.

Even though the failure of Brown's economic strategy is there for all to see, Osborne is willing to repeat it in order to buy votes.

I don't disagree with your statement, however I'd say Brown got us into this mess with his screwed up economics. Osborne's failure is to do nothing to get us out of it.

Industrial production under Labour plummeted under Osborne it's been more or less flat. The BoP problem which like you I think is significant is regrettably structural imo. Caused by Brown thinking Financial services will pay consolidated by Osborne doing little to reverse the problem.

Morris_Dancer said:

It turns out subsidising above-inflation rates of interest on savings for people who are disproportionately likely to vote is a very good thing. Who would have thought it?:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31241867

Amazing:

' However, Mr Osborne said he expected this figure to be extended to £15bn and the deadline moved until after the general election on 7 May. '

For a government which is going to miss its borrowing target by about £60bn this year there seems to be plenty of money available for buying votes.