|mattrich Posted on 16/05/2010 10:32|
|Vince Cable:"The skeletons are falling out of the cupboard"|
Dissapointing news if true, that the goverments debts were even bigger than first thought, and the last goverment operated a very blaise approach to spending and contract signing in there final days of power, why anyone would want to be in power baffles me.
|Link: sunday times|
|Sea_Harrier Posted on 16/05/2010 11:12|
It's been said many times, by people in the media and by political commentators, that this was a good election to lose.
|rivals_oldschool Posted on 16/05/2010 11:55|
Cameron confirmed, on the Andrew Marr show, that Osborne will call an audit tomorrow.
They're going to very publicly and ruthlessly stitch up the Labour party on their scorched earth financing.
No wonder Labour tried ever desperately to cling onto power. A Prime minister who resigns twice in two days has something to hide.
|Zelig2 Posted on 16/05/2010 12:16|
Every time a new management team takes over a company the first thing it says is "the books are far worse than we thought". This also applies to new governments.
|rivals_oldschool Posted on 16/05/2010 12:24|
Usually because it's true.
|Rodney_Trotter Posted on 16/05/2010 12:25|
Labour didn`t do too much moaning in 1997!
|Zelig2 Posted on 16/05/2010 12:31|
rivals your naivety surprises me. It would of been bizarre if Cameron had said "actually Labour didn't do as bad a job as I thought they had". The truth is every govt blames the last govt until people finally get sick of them saying it. To be fair Labour did it aswell in 1997.
By saying the finances are worse than they thought they would be they are now going to say "the cuts are going to be even bigger than we though. We hate doing it because we're on your side but Labour have wrecked the economy. Blame them not us". This of course is just party politics.
|corabora Posted on 16/05/2010 12:45|
It adds an element of truth coming from Vince Cable who is an ex Labour counciller and tried to become a Labour MP.
|Zelig2 Posted on 16/05/2010 12:47|
He's still a politician who is going to be part of a government that needs to make big cuts to public services & raise taxes. I'm not blaming them for saying it because every government does the same. I'm just surprised anyone is naive enough to believe it.
|bolifer Posted on 16/05/2010 12:59|
You don't have to be "naive" Zelig to see that this is a Labour government which has ruled the UK through 11 years of plenty and 2 years of credit crunch,and left us with 20 years to pay back their misrule.
End of "boom and bust" indeed.
|rivals_oldschool Posted on 16/05/2010 13:25|
It's only naive if I thought the UK finances were not shot to sh*t.
We're not number one target for CDS speculators for nothing.
|Zelig2 Posted on 16/05/2010 14:14|
I said you were naive for being surprised that a new govt would say the finances were worse than they expected once they took power. All three parties have access to the civil service & they all knew exactly how bad the finances were.
|whale_oil_beef_hooked Posted on 16/05/2010 14:34|
The other side of the coin is that if this coalition doesnt work and if another election is called cable and clegg will be looking for votes, now i believe they have comitted political suicide by joining cameron and the electorate will not like it.
|TheBoy007 Posted on 16/05/2010 14:42|
Its pure conjecture and just the Tories (through their Lib Dem mouth piece) paving the way for savage cuts.
|HolgateCorner Posted on 16/05/2010 15:36|
It's just the usual cra* you get from an incoming Tory government, they did the same in 1979.
As mentioned above Blair and Brown did exactly the same in 1997.
I think history will judge that Brown and Darling were very honest about the size of the deficit, what was the point in hiding it?
Another 10 seats and Labour would now be in a coalition government with Clegg.
The deficit was caused by the Tory bankers so let the Tories get on with it and sort it out, they were born to govern weren't they?
So they can get on with governing and we can then see what they are made of.
|moxxey Posted on 16/05/2010 15:36|
"Its pure conjecture and just the Tories (through their Lib Dem mouth piece) paving the way for savage cuts."
Erm, I think that's a given, whoever came in to power. Mind you, raising the tax threshold to £10,000, can't leave you with too many complaints...!
|joshie Posted on 16/05/2010 15:49|
Thats right it is all lies the finances have all been honestly declared, no mismanagement took place.
The bankers are all tory so it is the tories fault.
The cuts wouldnt have happened at all under a labour government and everything would have been rosy with, in fact, increased public spending whilst still servicing our debts.....
|TheBoy007 Posted on 16/05/2010 15:51|
The new threshold (lib policy) is a gradual thing. Best estimate put the first rise at £1000 next April. My guess is the coalition won't last long beyond that and even if it does the Tories will spin it so that they don't introduce the rest up to 10k. Apart from that the upping of the 'poor tax' (vat) will more than make up for any increase in tax allowance. Latest estimates reckon a figure of 25% is not unrealistic.
|HolgateCorner Posted on 16/05/2010 15:54|
I don't think Labour ever made any pretence that they would be cutting the debt.
If you had bothered listening you would remember that it was a timing issue in order not to destroy the recovery.
Oh, and if you had listened really hard you would remember that Vince Cable agreed with Labour (and he thinks Osborne is out of his depth)
But don't let the facts get in the way of a bit of Gordon Brown bashing.
And show me a city banker who isn't a Tory.
|TheBoy007 Posted on 16/05/2010 16:08|
Labours biggest downfall was not repealing some of Thatcher's legislation like deregulation of the banks. What we need is a leftist goverment that will roll back all these 'greed is good' policies, not Thatcher with a knob and his sidekick determined to make the poor pay for the recession while the rich and big buisness get rewarded with tax breaks and a free hand to exploit the workers.
|HolgateCorner Posted on 16/05/2010 16:13|
Labour would not have won 3 elections in a row and prevented the Tories from winning this one if they had been too left wing.
You only have to read some of the posts on here to realise how indoctrinated some of our citizens have been by the right wing media.
|TheBoy007 Posted on 16/05/2010 16:16|
I agree but i think Blair/Brown missed the boat on alot of things they could have changed and didn't.
|1finny Posted on 16/05/2010 16:30|
No question Blair/Brown missed the boat. Huge majorities gave them the opportunity for real reform. They chose a different path in order to 'keep getting elected'.
Of course, Cameron and Clegg are really different and only in it for the sake of the country. Their alliance is logical and philosophically sound. The suggestion they were desperate for power and will now pedal all sorts of rubbish to undermine (even further) the Laboour Party is, of course wrong. Its politics
|moxxey Posted on 16/05/2010 18:11|
"Apart from that the upping of the 'poor tax' (vat) will more than make up for any increase in tax allowance. Latest estimates reckon a figure of 25% is not unrealistic."
Firstly an increase in VAT isn't a 'poor tax'. Everyone pays it. You just will need to choose future purchases more carefully.
Secondly, 20% will bring is in line with the European average. £2.50 extra on a £100 purchase. It won't be 25%. Where have you read 25%?
Lastly, they are saying that it won't rise until next year at least - retail have asked for it not to kick-in Q3/Q4 this year or Q1 next year as they won't have time to implement.
So....it's going to be quite a few months before we say any increase in VAT.
|BoroPhil Posted on 16/05/2010 19:41|
choose future purchases more carefully? yeah, let's not have any petrol this week.
why not increase vat to 40% (or higher, or an incremental scale) on luxury goods over a certain value? then , 'choose future purchases more carefully' would apply.
|degsyspesh Posted on 16/05/2010 19:51|
General food isn't vatable
|ridsdale Posted on 16/05/2010 20:00|
"Firstly an increase in VAT isn't a 'poor tax'."
Yes it is, very much so. For those with a large disposable income, VAT is largely, avoidable.
That is why Thatcher favoured such taxes and doubled VAT, and then proposed putting full VAT on gas and electric.
|TheBoy007 Posted on 16/05/2010 20:07|
"Firstly an increase in VAT isn't a 'poor tax'. Everyone pays it. You just will need to choose future purchases more carefully."
As the poor spend a far higher proportion of their income on basic things like heating, food (there's a high likelihood that they will slap VAT on food), clothes, bills ect they spend a far higher proportion of their income on VAT. A hike in VAT will hit the poor hard.
|TheBoy007 Posted on 16/05/2010 20:12|
"General food isn't vatable"
Sainsbury chief executive has already spoken out against the likelihood of VAT being put on food. He's worried it will eat into his £733 million annual profit
|rivals_oldschool Posted on 16/05/2010 20:15|
I notice you havn't given them their due for shelving the inheritance tax threshold, which you banged on about.
Lets just wait and see what happens first.
You have to measure it up against what they may be giving back and what we all have to pay for Labours fu*k ups.
|degsyspesh Posted on 16/05/2010 20:21|
"For those with a large disposable income, VAT is largely, avoidable" - how's that???
Food is zero rated (generally), energy is typically 5% rated. So how can a group of people with low incomes who spend proportionately more of their money on such necessities be hit hardest by an increase in VAT? I think that there is a significant possibility that you are talking utter b0ll0cks.
IF VAT is put on food (or increased on energy) then that is a different story. However, the chances of that happening are pretty much feck all - no matter how much you would like to believe that those nasty evil tories want to do it....
|moxxey Posted on 16/05/2010 20:25|
"As the poor spend a far higher proportion of their income on basic things"
But also bear in mind that they are offsetting some of this by increasing the tax threshold, too.
Whatever happens, we're all going to be 'hit hard'! Low, middle and higher income.
|Towell Posted on 16/05/2010 20:26|
They've only said they're going to work towards raising the threshold.
I'd hazard that it will not happen after this emergency budget.
|ridsdale Posted on 16/05/2010 20:30|
Things that are necessities, like clothes, household products and other basics ARE subject to VAT. Also fuel.
"So how can a group of people with low incomes who spend proportionately more of their money on such necessities be hit hardest by an increase in VAT?" Think about it FFS.
The fact is that the rich do not need any more of these than the rest of us means the majority of there earning are less affected by any VAT rise, unlike income tax which is a more just form of taxation.
|TheBoy007 Posted on 16/05/2010 20:34|
"I notice you havn't given them their due for shelving the inheritance tax threshold"
Only because the Libs forced their hand (one of the few concessions they did get). The 50p tax will go mid term. Osborne said in the manifesto "We do not regard the 50p tax rate as a permanent feature of the tax system." He hasn't rescinded so expect it around 2012 if the coalition holds that long. And i'd expect the raising of the Inheritance Tax threshold to resurface around then.
|degsyspesh Posted on 16/05/2010 20:34|
Are you suggesting that the "rich", spend exactly the same on living as the "poor" and bank the rest???
Think about it FFS.
Proportionately speaking, the rich typically spend more of their money on full VAT goods - therefore a raise in the rate of VAT will cost them proportionately more than the poor.
|ridsdale Posted on 16/05/2010 20:35|
VAT IS a regressive tax.
|Link: THe rich pay less|
|TheBoy007 Posted on 16/05/2010 20:36|
"They've only said they're going to work towards raising the threshold."
Whats being said at the moment is that it will be raised by £1000 next April.
|degsyspesh Posted on 16/05/2010 20:39|
I'm not sure that the fact that "Some critics consider it a regressive tax" means that it actually is.....
|TheBoy007 Posted on 16/05/2010 20:46|
Compared to raising direct taxes like income tax, increases in indirect taxes like VAT have a much bigger impact on people with low incomes. As the Office for National Statistics has pointed out, direct taxes are progressive; they “contribute to a reduction in inequality”. Indirect taxes, on the other hand:
“Have the opposite effect to direct taxes taking a higher proportion of income from those with lower incomes, that is, they are regressive.”
If we divide the country by income into quintiles (fifths), income tax accounts for 3.2 per cent of the income of the poorest quintile, but 18.4 per cent of the income of the richest. VAT, on the other hand, accounts for 10.8 per cent of the income of the poorest quintile but just 4.5 per cent of the income of the richest.
|ridsdale Posted on 16/05/2010 20:46|
VAT is regressive.
"The other concern is the impact of VAT increases on poverty and inequality. Compared to raising direct taxes like income tax, increases in indirect taxes like VAT have a much bigger impact on people with low incomes. As the Office for National Statistics has pointed out, direct taxes are progressive; they “contribute to a reduction in inequality”. Indirect taxes, on the other hand:
“Have the opposite effect to direct taxes taking a higher proportion of income from those with lower incomes, that is, they are regressive.”
If we divide the country by income into quintiles (fifths), income tax accounts for 3.2 per cent of the income of the poorest quintile, but 18.4 per cent of the income of the richest. VAT, on the other hand, accounts for 10.8 per cent of the income of the poorest quintile but just 4.5 per cent of the income of the richest."
|Link: No doubt about it|
|ridsdale Posted on 16/05/2010 20:47|
Great minds and all that boy
|TheBoy007 Posted on 16/05/2010 20:47|
Does anyone remember the Lib Dem poster "Tory VAT bombshell"? Now they're in on it, the treacherous b@stards!
|TheBoy007 Posted on 16/05/2010 20:48|
|danes_close Posted on 16/05/2010 20:48|
For anyone who thinks that VAT won't be raised in the Budget, read today's Telegraph
"High Street bosses are so convinced the new Government will increase VAT to 20pc that one of the UK's largest chains is already altering its prices in anticipation"
|Link: VAT Increase|
|degsyspesh Posted on 16/05/2010 20:55|
"Great minds..." PMSL
FMTTM's resident pair of bright sparks
|TheBoy007 Posted on 16/05/2010 21:01|
Is that it then Degsy? Nothing more to add to the debate?
|degsyspesh Posted on 16/05/2010 21:08|
What are you debating?
If you are sticking to Ridsdale's original point that the poorest are proportionately hardest hit by an increase in VAT then you are taking shoite - and so there's nothing to debate.
However, you now seem to be saying that a rise in VAT is comparitively worse for the poor than a rise in direct taxation such as income tax which it clearly is - and so there's nothing to debate.
They are two very different arguments.
|sheriff_john_bunnell Posted on 16/05/2010 21:12|
the amount of money raised by putting up VAT will be dwarfved by the cost in changing all the sodding price labels again.
STOP SODDING ABOUT WITH VAT!!!!!!
|TheBoy007 Posted on 16/05/2010 21:16|
"If you are sticking to Ridsdale's original point that the poorest are proportionately hardest hit by an increase in VAT then you are taking shoite"
So someone who spends 10.8% of their income on VAT won't be harder hit by an increase than someone who pays 4.5%???
Have a word with yourself, its simple mathematics.
|ridsdale Posted on 16/05/2010 21:17|
"They are two very different arguments."
No they are not, if you can't understand why, then you are the one spouting shight.
|degsyspesh Posted on 16/05/2010 21:21|
Yeah, I'm really going to have a word with myself over some stats published in "Left foot forward".
|degsyspesh Posted on 16/05/2010 21:24|
Rids, the first argument holds no reference to income tax. The second is centred on the comparative impact between VAT and income tax.
Even the most clueless cnut could see that they clearly are different arguments.
|TheBoy007 Posted on 16/05/2010 21:36|
income - 100k
Amount paid in VAT - 4500 4.5%
Amount more to be paid following a 2.5% increase - 112
total - 4612
% of income paid in Vat - 4.61%
Rise % of income - 0.11%
income - 10k
Amount paid in VAT - 1080 10.8%
Amount more to be paid following a 2.5% increase - 26
total - 1106
% of income paid in Vat - 11.06%
Rise % of income - 0.26%
|rivals_oldschool Posted on 16/05/2010 21:43|
The whole picture is not going to be made up on VAT.
The talk on CGT tax will not be hitting the poor, the lions share will be coming from those more wealthier.
Again, wait and see the whole picture before judgement is passed.
I'm not quite sure what you are getting at, those schools and hospitals you talk about haven't been paid for yet. They won't pay themselves off.
|TheBoy007 Posted on 16/05/2010 22:06|
"Yeah, I'm really going to have a word with myself over some stats published in "Left foot forward"
Stats that came from the Office of national statistics.
|HolgateCorner Posted on 16/05/2010 22:10|
Must say I am surprised at the argument above that VAT will not hit the poor more than the rich.
Even without the statistics it's obvious isn't it?
It will only hit the rich to the same proportion if they spend all their income on things which attract VAT.
Which they don't.
They probably save a lot more, put more into investments, pay a lot of mortgage etc.
The poor basically have to spend all their money to live and have any kind of lifestyle, so they get hit harder.
|Guisborough_Town_Red Posted on 16/05/2010 22:31|
How can people on here complain that the Tories will target the poor, when in fact the gap between the rich and the poor has never been greater... All thanks to Labour!
|HolgateCorner Posted on 16/05/2010 22:35|
GTR - so the Tory answer to that is to make it even worse is it??
You can't blame Labour if the Tories put VAT up to 20% or even more.
|degsyspesh Posted on 16/05/2010 22:38|
HC, errrr - yes you can. Why do the tories need to increase taxation?
|HolgateCorner Posted on 16/05/2010 22:44|
the reason we have such a large deficit is because of the USA born banking crisis. This sent the world economy into recession and the banking sector bankrupt. We were particularly dependent upon tax revenue from the banks so we took a big hit there and the government also kept spending high to keep unemployment down through the worst of the recession.
It would have happened even if the Tories had been in power, probaly with worse consequences given the Tories previously poor record of managing our economy but that is a separate issue.
Why dont the Tories put up income tax instead of VAT?
|degsyspesh Posted on 16/05/2010 22:58|
HC - they'll have to do both.
The US banking crisis is certainly part of the problem, but this is dwarfed by labour's "spending more than we earn" policy in a shocking (but successful) attempt to buy their popularity. A credit card binge of truly catastrophic proportions.
|HolgateCorner Posted on 16/05/2010 23:02|
I disagree, it was under control until the banking crisis.
The failure of the banks was a godsend to the Tories.
Anyway, Cameron's problem now, let's see if he can handle the heat.
|degsyspesh Posted on 16/05/2010 23:15|
So what you mean is that it was "under control" until a fairly predictable event happened for which there was no contingency as it had all been spent???
Financial management of the highest order....
|TheBoy007 Posted on 16/05/2010 23:25|
If we weren't so dependent on the service industry, the recession wouldn't have hit us so hard. If, like Germany and France, we had some manufacturing to fall back on, the road to recovery wouldn't have been so hard. We have Thatcher to thank for us having no manufacturing to speak of, the evil fcuking b!tch!
|degsyspesh Posted on 16/05/2010 23:31|
Whatever you think of Thatcher, how can any even moderately intelligent person blame someone who has had no power in 20 years!!!???
You will argue that she killed manufacturing, I will argue that it was the unions - but at the end of the day it is all pointless.
We have had a Labour government for 13 years - what have they done to stimulate manufacturing in this country during that time - absolutely feck all.
|two_banks_of_four Posted on 16/05/2010 23:38|
UK has the worlds 6th biggest manufacturing sector. Do carry on though.
|Zelig2 Posted on 17/05/2010 04:41|
No point even arguing with these ignorant Tory voters. On the effects of V.A.T. they are seriously trying to dispute the figures of the office of national statistics & the settled view of every economist on the planet. Next they'll be saying the grass is blue & the sky is green. Clueless knobs.
|SidSnot Posted on 17/05/2010 05:59|
the reason we have such a large deficit is because of the USA born banking crisis
More drivel Holgate I'm afriad.
|TheBoy007 Posted on 17/05/2010 08:31|
"UK has the worlds 6th biggest manufacturing sector. Do carry on though."
Thatcher wiped out 1/3 of our manufacturing base on a whim in the 80's (never to return). Do carry on though.
|TheBoy007 Posted on 17/05/2010 08:41|
You only have to look at how our national debt has risen in conjunction with the US's to see that this isn't a problem born out of Labours policies. George Bush was one of the most right wing presidents for a long term, infact he was neo-conservative yet the us's national debt rose sharply under him and currently stands at $13 trillon! The deficit was $1.4 trillion at the end of 2009.
|Sea_Harrier Posted on 17/05/2010 08:48|
Master Bond, I know that you are very much Labour biased in your politics, but could you please explain how Thatcher scuppered 33% of our manufacturing base "at a whim".
Where did you secure that figure from?
How much of that 33% was due to union involvement?
How much of that 33% was due to workers wanting to pay themselves more than the market would stand, hence declining business?
Why did New Labour not reverse the trend as there was 13 years of uninterrupted power to enable them do so?
Why did the manufacturing industries further decline under 13 years of New Labour stewardship?
|degsyspesh Posted on 17/05/2010 08:53|
SH - Prepare yourself for an response that somehow manages to refer to stopping school milk.....
|Sea_Harrier Posted on 17/05/2010 09:00|
This Tory bashing continues unabated, from some on here.
Personally, I didn't vote as non were worthy of it, but I know we are in for a long period of grief. The economy is undeniably shágged.
Whom-so-ever gives me that grief is irrelevant, it will hurt whether Tory, Labour, Lib Dem et al.
The General Election has been and gone, so please get over it.FFS.
|speckyget Posted on 17/05/2010 09:26|
Going back to the original point and linked article. The procurements it relates to were in the public domain weeks/months ago when the contracts were let. That's the law. All procurement activity (anything beyond preferred bidder) ceases for the purdah period when the election is called. Again, that's how government works.
Cynical, opportunistic and borderline duplicitous to imply that there was some last minute emptying of coffers ahead of an election. And predictable of course, very predictable.
|Emmersons_BrazillianDong Posted on 17/05/2010 09:27|
See you later Gordon you one eyed jock Cnut. Welcome in Mr Cameron and Clegg
You can be as negative as you like but no amount of crying into your labour flags is going to change that these two boys are in and calling the shots. Just what we need.
Have a good day chaps.
|sitheman Posted on 17/05/2010 09:32|
Labour did no moaning in 1997 because they were left with a pot of billions. Labour have then spent over penny and managed to riddle the country with debt. Any silly XXXXXXer could run a country likle that if they no accountability on their spending.
|speckyget Posted on 17/05/2010 09:34|
They were accountable through the NAO and Public Accounts Committee. And through elections every five years.
|rivals_oldschool Posted on 17/05/2010 09:46|
That still doesn't mean the maths behind any of it was sound Specky.
The previous Govt managed to get the maths wrong for the Chilcot inquiry, when defending their MOD budgeting, to get through on a lie.
I personally wouldn't put it past them.
|speckyget Posted on 17/05/2010 09:48|
But they didn't get away with it did they? Otherwise how would you know about it?
|rivals_oldschool Posted on 17/05/2010 09:56|
I'm more concerned on what they did get away with though.
If he can lie and cheat on the MOD budget whilst they're at war, I wouldn't put it past him to lie anywhere else.
They only got found out on Chilcot because it was very much in the public eye at the time.
|speckyget Posted on 17/05/2010 09:58|
Accounts are audited by the NAO and published.
|rivals_oldschool Posted on 17/05/2010 10:02|
|speckyget Posted on 17/05/2010 10:02|
|rivals_oldschool Posted on 17/05/2010 10:06|
An indepentent Parliamentary body you say.
|speckyget Posted on 17/05/2010 10:13|
If you're saying the government - any goverment - interferes in the audit of its own accounts you're wrong. Audited using the same FRSs as any corporation.
|Sea_Harrier Posted on 17/05/2010 10:14|
Specky, is it fair to assume that you are a public sector employee?
|speckyget Posted on 17/05/2010 10:15|
I've worked in both. Knowing how your govenment operates is nothing to do with what job you do.
|Sea_Harrier Posted on 17/05/2010 10:17|
In the public sector you'd feel more secure under Labour, would you?
|speckyget Posted on 17/05/2010 10:19|
Fail to see how. Also tax wise I've been better off under Tories.
|rivals_oldschool Posted on 17/05/2010 10:22|
I've never yet worked in a company that has been properly audited and has never been punished accordingly either.
That being the case I certianly wouldn't trust MP's and civil servants to be anything better.
|bear66 Posted on 17/05/2010 10:23|
Difficult to do the calculation but VAT to 17.5%, VAT on utilities and income tax not as low as 20% and capital gains at 40%, not 18% (or10%), no tax credits . . . depends what income bracket / family circumstances you're in but every party taxes its citizens and you ain't seen nothing yet!
|borobosco Posted on 17/05/2010 10:24|
What about all the off balance sheet pfi spending? In business this would be classed as fraud.
|speckyget Posted on 17/05/2010 10:28|
It might be accounted for off balance sheet - agree that's intuitively wrong if legally acceptable, and skews macro indicators. But PFIs and the amounts involved are hardly a secret are they?
|borobosco Posted on 17/05/2010 10:37|
But you were claiming the audited accounts are correct when plainly they are not. If a company produced accounts without including all liabilities they would be committing fraud.
|rivals_oldschool Posted on 17/05/2010 10:42|
Bottom line is specky that no proper auditing can exist on a body who can dump it's collateral onto tax payers.
All it means is that they never have to smell the coffee until it’s too late.
All a government ever has is good sense, and we’re about to learn the calibre of Labours.
|speckyget Posted on 17/05/2010 10:45|
They are audited according to the rules set out by Treasury. On the PFI point - as I've said - they should be included in macroeconomic measures of total liabilities, and Brown's government were coming under increasing pressure fron the EU to account for PFIs like other liabilities.
'no proper auditing can exist on a body who can dump it's collateral onto tax payers.'
That statement makes no sense.
But it's not like they are 'hidden' are they? The sums involved are still subject to public scrutiny, it's just a question of the accounting treatment.
|Hurworth Posted on 17/05/2010 10:47|
"subject to public scrutiny"
A bit like MPs expenses then? LOL.
|speckyget Posted on 17/05/2010 10:49|
Exactly like MPs expenses, yes.
|rivals_oldschool Posted on 17/05/2010 11:10|
So what your saying is the audit office is constrained by what data the treasury gives anyway? So it isn't independent.
Labour could bodge any predicted growth pattern it wanted, put the costs of current and future spending onto the tax payer and never be brought to account if their forecasts were ever wrong.
Osbornes has today pretty much said the same thing. Another good move.
"Mr Osborne, in his first speech since becoming chancellor, said the newly formed independent Office for Budget Responsibility would publish economic and fiscal forecasts, rather than the government.
He said these forecasts, the first of which will come out before the Budget, would create a "rod for my back down the line and for future chancellors. That's the whole point."
Mr Osborne said: "This is an enormous thing for the chancellor to give up... I'm deliberately doing this because I don't think it [the current system] produces good Budgets."
Mr Osborne said Labour's economic forecasts had mostly been wrong and "almost always in the wrong direction".
|speckyget Posted on 17/05/2010 11:15|
Who said anything about data?
Treasury set the procedures for accounting in government. The auditors' job is to ensure compliance, disclosure, etc., against those accounting procedures, using IFRSs. And they report to Parliament, not the government. Although I wonder if the distinction is a meaningful one to you, as it's clearly all a great big conspiracy to fiddle you out of your hard earned.
|rivals_oldschool Posted on 17/05/2010 11:17|
It started about 100 posts ago, keep up.
|speckyget Posted on 17/05/2010 11:18|
'So what your saying is the audit office is constrained by what data the treasury gives anyway?'
Two posts ago. And no, is the answer.
|rivals_oldschool Posted on 17/05/2010 11:25|
No it started specifically from when Vince cable mentioned the words 'uncosted' and 'spending'.
The rest is history.
|speckyget Posted on 17/05/2010 11:28|
Ah, Vince Cable said it. That must make it true then, him being a kindly old gent and all.
|rivals_oldschool Posted on 17/05/2010 11:38|
Well in fairness to Cable, he saw back in 2003 what the Labour Govt never saw till it smacked them in the face.
The credit crunch.
|speckyget Posted on 17/05/2010 11:44|
Overstated. He criticised domestic gearing but didn't predict the sub prime crisis in the States, not has he ever claimed to, to be fair.
|rivals_oldschool Posted on 17/05/2010 11:51|
He described the major unpinning of it though.
Which was more than the prudent chancellor ever did.
Did the treasury ever forecast the credit crunch, did the NOA ever pick up on the fact that they never?
|speckyget Posted on 17/05/2010 11:53|
You're confusing economic indicators with the audit of statutory accounts.
|rivals_oldschool Posted on 17/05/2010 11:56|
Actually I'm not since it backs my case.
It renders the NOA as ineffectual since the treasury could wilfully pump them with whatever economic indicators they wished.
|speckyget Posted on 17/05/2010 12:03|
For a start it's NAO. And for the rest - I think you'd better read up, because you don't seem to understand how the machinery of government works.
|rivals_oldschool Posted on 17/05/2010 12:08|
It's a fairly simple question.
Did the treasury forecast the credit crunch or not?
|speckyget Posted on 17/05/2010 12:14|
How the fk should I know?
|rivals_oldschool Posted on 17/05/2010 12:23|
|Zelig2 Posted on 17/05/2010 13:18|
No one forecast the credit crunch, not even Vince Cable. Hardly surprising though when you realise the banks are private companies who chose not to keep the world's governments up to date on their day to day dealings, how weird of them. I'm sure every private company on the planet tells their govts what they're up to at all times, next time I see my newsagent I'll ask him when his next meeting with David Cameron is. Clueless knobs.
|degsyspesh Posted on 17/05/2010 13:22|
Zelig, given the potential impact of a banking collapse on the country, do you not feel that the government had a duty to understand what was happening and what the risks were?
|Corcaigh_the_Cat Posted on 17/05/2010 13:27|
'Did the treasury forecast the credit crunch or not?'
Like the USA, they missed it altogether. Only the nations with an eye on the long term as opposed to bullshyte and spin appeared to be ready for it. If you think the Tories would have played it differently you're naive in the extreme.
|Zelig2 Posted on 17/05/2010 13:34|
Clearly the banks hid their actions from all of the prospective governments. This is not about one government or one prime minister. No one could accuse George Bush's administration of being too liberal or Germany's government of being inefficient. You can say that Labour should of saved money during the good times instead of rebuilding the county's public services, I would disagree with you but at least it would be a reasonable argument but blaming Labour & Gordon Brown for the risky practices of banking institutions is not reasonable.
Exactly Coraigh the Tories weren't warning about any of this. If anything they were saying Labour were hampering the bankers with too much red tape & saying "typical Labour putting too much regulation on business".
|rivals_oldschool Posted on 17/05/2010 13:37|
There was certainly an underlying point as to why Cable mentioned what he did in 2003. It wasn’t something he decided to share just for the sake of it.
He simply realised that there was an inevitable end game to securing debt onto one type of asset. Its GCSE economics.
Something of which the treasury failed to recognise. You don’t need auditing and forecasts to recognise inevitability.
|Corcaigh_the_Cat Posted on 17/05/2010 13:40|
This Labour/Tory point scoring is a waste of time.
We've had poor government for over thirty years. You've only got to look locally at the Teesside wastelands and the poor quality housing estates to realise it. Anyone going to away games comes across the same every weekend in a different town.
The nation's a slum. Neither the Tories nor Labour has looked at making a real difference to the benefit of the majority when in power.
|mattrich Posted on 17/05/2010 13:40|
In some cases the outgoing goverment had the decency to leave the new people a note, taken from todays times:
"From Times Online May 17, 2010
Liam Byrne, the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, last week wrote a letter for his successor - the Liberal Democrat David Laws - stating: "I’m afraid to tell you there’s no money left.”
|Sea_Harrier Posted on 17/05/2010 13:41|
Matt, that's just been reported on the ITV News.
|Zelig2 Posted on 17/05/2010 13:42|
It was clearly a joke from one MP to another. If David Laws hasn't got a sense of humour that's his problem & no one elses.
|Rodney_Trotter Posted on 17/05/2010 13:47|
Labour cut the manufacturing industry quicker than any other government in history.
Mandelson, the business secretary at the time, admitted as much on Newsnight. "Manufacturing is about more than hitting metal"
Keep blaming Thatcher though. The truth always does have a habit of ruining a good bigoted argument!
|bear66 Posted on 17/05/2010 13:51|
"Labour cut the manufacturing industry quicker than any other government in history."
Some facts please. What measure?
|Zelig2 Posted on 17/05/2010 13:51|
Face facts British manufacturing has been dying since the industrial revolution. The developing economies can manufacture goods much cheaper than we can & no British government can change that fact.
|mattrich Posted on 17/05/2010 13:53|
How does Germany fare in that presumption?
|Zelig2 Posted on 17/05/2010 13:55|
Britain is still the 6th largest manufacturer in the world so it's not all doom & gloom but we were always going to lose some manufacturing companies to countries like India, China, Brazil because of their low costs.
|Corcaigh_the_Cat Posted on 17/05/2010 13:57|
We're making more from manufacturing than we ever have done. The industry isn't as labour intensive as it was so it employs far fewer and is therefore more profitable.
What do we do with the labour that's no longer required in manufacturing. That's the big one.
Anybody fancy having a guess? The options are either the unemployment queue or employment elsewhere, whether that comes the private or the public purse.
We're not a poor nation, we're a slum nation. The money's there should we choose to put it to good use.
|Zelig2 Posted on 17/05/2010 14:01|
This is why we turned to the service industries because of the popularity of the English language & this is why Labour wants more of the population to go to University because they know we can't compete with countries like India, China, Brazil, etc with low skill industries so we will need to become a high skilled nation.
|Rodney_Trotter Posted on 17/05/2010 14:10|
The fact is Mandelson said it on Newsnight. Quickly followed by by his statement that the manufacturing industry is not just about bashing metal.