Reply to: So more of the same then (Tories tax increase pledges)

[zathras]

Tony, PFI was a Conservative idea...

The Private Finance Initiative was launched in November 1992, a financial mechanism to obtain private finance which could satisfy political need to increase investment in the infrastructure without affecting public borrowing, guarantee large contracts for construction companies and new investment opportunities for finance capital. Most politicians had a short-term perspective but capital was looking longer term. The 'crisis' in the flow of PFI projects between 1995-97 was partly caused by demands for state financial guarantees and partly because PFI consortia were flexing their muscle to ensure contracts reflected their interests. In one sense, PFI was a natural progression given the Conservative's privatisation and economic policies in the 1980s. The privatisation 'machine' was never going to stop, at least not of its own accord. PFI is privatisation by stealth, privatising those parts which could not, at least politically, be sold-off as complete services. It is the route to the ultimate marketisation and privatisation of health, education and social services.

"Taxpayers no longer need to own hospital buildings" claimed the Treasury (Private Finance Panel, 1996 p7).

PPI (renamed in a transparent attempt to hide the fact that it was a Tory policy) as it was originally known was indeed a Conservative idea but like a lot of problems with policies stolen by New Labour it is in the implementation that the problems arise. It's all very well having such agreements but they have now become so one sided that they represent poor value for taxpayer's money. It's partly because of the lack of commercial negotiating skills in the civil service but also because of the political pressure. Even where there is the required level of negotiating skills the need for PFI is driven by political considerations, so the choice not to enter into the contract is not even an option.

[DaveB]

Tony, PFI was a Conservative idea...

The Private Finance Initiative was launched in November 1992, a financial mechanism to obtain private finance which could satisfy political need to increase investment in the infrastructure without affecting public borrowing, guarantee large contracts for construction companies and new investment opportunities for finance capital. Most politicians had a short-term perspective but capital was looking longer term. The 'crisis' in the flow of PFI projects between 1995-97 was partly caused by demands for state financial guarantees and partly because PFI consortia were flexing their muscle to ensure contracts reflected their interests. In one sense, PFI was a natural progression given the Conservative's privatisation and economic policies in the 1980s. The privatisation 'machine' was never going to stop, at least not of its own accord. PFI is privatisation by stealth, privatising those parts which could not, at least politically, be sold-off as complete services. It is the route to the ultimate marketisation and privatisation of health, education and social services.

"Taxpayers no longer need to own hospital buildings" claimed the Treasury (Private Finance Panel, 1996 p7).

[BoredBloke]

"A huge song and dance has been made over the PFI Hospital deals and PFI IT projects."

"However your average chav in the street is too dumb to understand. Ergo if the Tories said they would increase tax thresholds and abolish tax credits they will think they have lost, out when in point of fact they will not have to worry about taxman clawing back money later."

No my point is why is the media not making a big song and dance about GB's dodgy accountancy. Why is the media not promoting a tax system which is not as complex as the one we have.

It doesn't really matter what the Tories say until they can get the popular media onside, or the current lot make themselves so unpopular that anybody would be better.

[zathras]

The Tax Credit system is simply a benefit system by another name.

Gordon Brown likes it because it hides government spending, just like PFI.

Tax Credits allow benefits to be taken off the balance sheet, they become a reduction in income. Now what happened to that company Enron which had things off balance sheet.

However your average chav in the street is too dumb to understand. Ergo if the Tories said they would increase tax thresholds and abolish tax credits they will think they have lost, out when in point of fact they will not have to worry about taxman clawing back money later.

[DaveB]

PFI is a massive con which is going to cost us very dearly in the future. Why nobody is not making a huge song and dance about it is beyond me.

PFI is a massive con that has already cost us dearly. A huge song and dance has been made over the PFI Hospital deals and PFI IT projects. So much so that PFI is now prohibited in new Govt. sponsored IT Projects.

[BoredBloke]

Actually he likes it becuase it employs a lot of people who vote Labour (in the same way that a turkey will not vote for Christmas) and which means they stay off the unemployment numbers. It was also designed to please those at the bottom who would see this as being a nice little handout from a kind government. Unfortunately it was so cumbersome and badly implemenbted that in many cases the over payments forced some of those at the bottom into real financial trouble when Hector came knocking for thier cash back.

PFI is a massive con which is going to cost us very dearly in the future. Why nobody is not making a huge song and dance about it is beyond me.

[wendigo100]

The Tax Credit system is simply a benefit system by another name.

Gordon Brown likes it because it hides government spending, just like PFI.

[BoredBloke]

"That is to abolish the tax credits system, accompanied by an increase in the tax thresholds, taking the poorest people out of taxation altogether"

The tax credits system should be used by the Tories to emphasise everything what is wrong with New labour.

1 - It is costly to run
2 - It is prone to error - £2,000,000,000 per year
3 - It is bureaucratic and slow to react to change, leading to some of point 2
4 - It is artificial. Why not collect the right amount in the first place rather than giving a bit back
5 - It promotes a benefits culture and a dependency on the state
6 - Its errors have lead to real hardship for those 'hard working families' whom it was intended to help.

and this is the pet project of the guy running the country.

[Mailman]

Meh, this country needs another Thatcher...someone who isnt afraid to take the axe to the public service like she took the axe to the mining industry!

Mailman

[Lucifer Box]

Imagine what she would say now, if the public were actually let near the people who are supposed to represent us.

Very little, as now she would be detained without charge for 28 days under prevention of terrorism laws and then tried for possession of kiddie porn.

[wendigo100]

I have to admit I wish Tebbit and Redwood would just quietly fade away. Or basically shut up and die.

Perhaps, but I disagree. They serve a useful purpose for Cameron - it allows him to be seen as kicking the "nasty Tory past" into touch.

[mcquiggd]

I have to admit I wish Tebbit and Redwood would just quietly fade away. Or basically shut up and die.

Every time they say anything the media drag up the most evil looking pictures of them, and usually Thatcher, as if to reinforce the lefties stereotypes as 'they still havent changed'.

After all the sleaze of new labour, it is rare to see, say, an interview with tony blair with pictures of mandelson, the hindujas, lakshmi mittal, derry irvine, keith vaz, lord sainsbury, lord levi, etc etc etc to remind the electorate of his heritage.

Nobody mentions gordon 'prudence' brown in conjunction with his parties £27,000,000. Or links that to his changing the 'economic cycle'.

Instead they are dazzzled by the utterances of bill clinton, a man who jizzed over a gullible intern in the White House. What he gets up to in his own time is between him and Hillary - but now we have prescott trying to emulate him. No wonder they sacked the person who was appointed for 'overseeing standards in public life'. There aren't any left to uphold.

But one conversation with Tebbit, and it's 'Tory civil war'.

Ironically its new labour that are busy sacking nurses, breaking up the UK and starting wars all over the world. I remember when that lady managed to collar blair outside a hospital and vent her anger at him for the state of the NHS. Imagine what she would say now, if the public were actually let near the people who are supposed to represent us.

[hyperD]

You haven't heard Osbourne's speech then. He refuses to write the 2009 budget in 2006 (although with the clear but unspoken assumption he would be writing it in 2009) since he doesn't know what sort of a mess he will be sorting out. He did say he will shift the taxation basis from personal to corporate, he did say they will incentivise the lower paid by simplifying the system (again, saying and doing will be two different problems, I suspect), he did say he would consider transferable tax-free bands between husband and wife to encourage stay-at-home mothers, he did say, very strongly, that they are in favour of smaller governments and lower taxes as a core principle. From that you can deduce that they have agreed to look at the whole situation at a time when they can actually do something about it.


I think we will see more concrete proposals in good time. Doing them now means they get spun out of sight by Liebour before they get a chance. Don't forget it took Thatcher about 8 years to straighten the incompetent mess she inherited: the way Gay Gordon has snarled things up, it will take longer this time around.

Thanks Malv... just reviewed it now.

Sounds like Osborne pledges to end "stealth taxation" and aspire to a flatter tax system. As I said before and quoting him:

"We will never do that if people believe our tax policy comes at the expense of their public services. That will not happen. And we will never ever win the argument on tax - or on anything else for that matter - if people fear for one moment that we might endanger the stability of the economy [or] endanger the low mortgage rates and low inflation families depend on."

[hyperD]

Taxation needs to simplified. Trouble is that one of the best ways of doing that will be seized on by GB & Co with absolute glee. That is to abolish the tax credits system, accompanied by an increase in the tax thresholds, taking the poorest people out of taxation altogether.

Agreed, but I don't think that gordon will let go of his pet project somehow. It would be a great loss of face. Unless he was PM maybe and Osborne had stated a policy that the Tories would be going for Flat Tax System...

[zathras]

You haven't heard Osbourne's speech then. .....He did say he will shift the taxation basis from personal to corporate.

I wonder about this, since most of us who are working as IT Contractors are corporates! (just small ones).

Perhaps what needs to happen is to move taxation from income to consumption.

Taxation needs to simplified. Trouble is that one of the best ways of doing that will be seized on by GB & Co with absolute glee. That is to abolish the tax credits system, accompanied by an increase in the tax thresholds, taking the poorest people out of taxation altogether.