Reply to: Meet Godfrey Bloom, the Osborne of UKIP

[barrydidit]

Bongo drums and a fridge cleaning slut for a Christmas card theme? Well, he's got a sense of humour!

[DimPrawn]

Except CMD will give you a referendum, and Lib-Lab possibly won't.

A promise of a referendum, who knows what it will contain.

Most likely.

A - More Europe
B - Same amount of Europe



UKIP baby.

[Mich the Tester]

Fine by me, Call me Dave is basically Tony Bliar and Conservatives are New Labour.

So it's Old Labour or New Labour.

Or kick the whole lot in the bollox and vote UKIP.

Except CMD will give you a referendum, and Lib-Lab possibly won't.

[DimPrawn]

I think the more likely scenario is that UKIP unwittingly assist Mr Miliband by splitting the conservative vote.

Fine by me, Call me Dave is basically Tony Bliar and Conservatives are New Labour.

So it's Old Labour or New Labour.

Or kick the whole lot in the bollox and vote UKIP.

[DimPrawn]

Millions extra on benefits, massive increase in unemployment, what a great way to start if you get elected.

Remove all benefits.

Spend the money saved on soup kitchens, armed police and overseas prisons.

[Mich the Tester]

Millions extra on benefits, massive increase in unemployment, what a great way to start if you get elected.

I think the more likely scenario is that UKIP unwittingly assist Mr Miliband by splitting the conservative vote.

[vetran]

I think a gradual reduction would be good, public sector as a percentage of total jobs has crept up by 5% (27% against 22%) since 1981 when most companies have shed workforce due to automation. Much of the work done in public sector jobs are a prime target for automation.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...O2avqMG8LhoF9w

[d000hg]

I hope it's millions.

Millions extra on benefits, massive increase in unemployment, what a great way to start if you get elected.

[DodgyAgent]

They know? Or they believe because that is what they have been told over and over again?

Is the public sector more or less chronically inefficient and wasteful than stuff that has been outsourced to the private sector likes of Atos, Capita, G4S, Accenture & co? Are the railways models of efficiency and minimal waste? What about council waste collection? What about utilities? Broadband?

It might be closer to the truth to say that while there is waste and inefficiency in public services, it's there in the private sector as well. If you look at things like the spend per pupil or per patient, it is generally lower in the public sector than the private, that would lead me to think that perhaps out of necessity (cos lets face it they have had a lot more practice) the public sector has become somewhat better than the private at keeping costs down.

Of course there is also a reasonable argument that focussing purely on costs actually increases waste and reduces efficiency because the best value for money is rarely found at the bottom end of the market and although you spend less you end up with less per pound spent.

For some reason people seem to expect state services to provide the same standards as the best of the private sector, what they don't seem willing to acknowledge is that the public sector is often providing those services for half the price. Given that the private sector is supposedly driven to become more efficient by the profit incentive it's safe to assume that if the private sector could reduce their costs by 50% they would jump at the opportunity. They don't, because they cannot do so and maintain the standards they have set themselves.

So I would ask, how is the public sector supposed to deliver the "highest standards" at half the cost when even the magic pixies of the private sector cannot do so?

As an aside, did you know that 200,000 public sector jobs were "lost" in April 2012 because the ONS reclassified them as private sector. That's cuts that is

You are quite right. The greater the monopoly the greater the inefficiency. Pile in job protection laws and remove management accountability and the inefficiencies get worse.
Public or Private it does not matter.

[VectraMan]

In all honesty I don't see what's wrong with a flat income tax, the trick is to play with the tax free allowance to ensure that the higher earners pay more as an absolute

I don't think Joe Public really understands allowances, or even the way tax bands work. They just want to hear numbers like "20%" and "40%" and know that "the rich" pay more than they do - not that they understand what "more" means either.

This UKIP bloke does make a lot of sense, I admit. It's interesting times for UKIP: if they're a single issue party then none of this other stuff matters, but if they're serious people are going to start looking at their other policies and things like flat income tax rates are never going to fly with the UK electorate. UKIPist keep saying how the vote for UKIP is partly a rejection of traditional politics, but if UKIP now abandon their core beliefs and adopt more populist policies to get votes, then they're just as bad as the rest of them.

[doodab]

everyone in those knows they are supporting public sector workers, and that the public sector is generally chronically inefficient and wasteful.

They know? Or they believe because that is what they have been told over and over again?

Is the public sector more or less chronically inefficient and wasteful than stuff that has been outsourced to the private sector likes of Atos, Capita, G4S, Accenture & co? Are the railways models of efficiency and minimal waste? What about council waste collection? What about utilities? Broadband?

It might be closer to the truth to say that while there is waste and inefficiency in public services, it's there in the private sector as well. If you look at things like the spend per pupil or per patient, it is generally lower in the public sector than the private, that would lead me to think that perhaps out of necessity (cos lets face it they have had a lot more practice) the public sector has become somewhat better than the private at keeping costs down.

Of course there is also a reasonable argument that focussing purely on costs actually increases waste and reduces efficiency because the best value for money is rarely found at the bottom end of the market and although you spend less you end up with less per pound spent.

For some reason people seem to expect state services to provide the same standards as the best of the private sector, what they don't seem willing to acknowledge is that the public sector is often providing those services for half the price. Given that the private sector is supposedly driven to become more efficient by the profit incentive it's safe to assume that if the private sector could reduce their costs by 50% they would jump at the opportunity. They don't, because they cannot do so and maintain the standards they have set themselves.

So I would ask, how is the public sector supposed to deliver the "highest standards" at half the cost when even the magic pixies of the private sector cannot do so?

As an aside, did you know that 200,000 public sector jobs were "lost" in April 2012 because the ONS reclassified them as private sector. That's cuts that is

[OwlHoot]

“I hope thousands of public sector jobs will be lost”

Not a very sensible thing to say to the electorate

Why not? There are more non-public sector jobs, and everyone in those knows they are supporting public sector workers, and that the public sector is generally chronically inefficient and wasteful.

[doodab]

I think the flat rate income tax is an excellent idea, although I think it would need to be a bit higher than 25%, and like you say we'd need a larger tax free allowance to ensure people on low incomes could cover their living costs.

He seems like less of a twat than George Osborne, which admittedly isn't the biggest challenge he's ever going to face, but it's a start.

[Bacchus]

Will the 25% be applied retrospectively?

Yes.

Give them 25% of whatever you've got left...

In all honesty I don't see what's wrong with a flat income tax, the trick is to play with the tax free allowance to ensure that the higher earners pay more as an absolute

I was thinking only yesterday about a friend who earns around half of a reasonable contractor wage, I thought it didn't seem too bad, but the result is that a MUCH higher percentage of his income is taken up with the essentials. The tax system should allow a reasonable disposable income.

[Old Greg]

He'll tell anything to get votes.

"Earlier this year Bloom openly began backing a 25% flat tax, which is now a stated proposal on the party’s website. It is likely aimed at bringing middle-income families that have so far largely shunned UKIP into its growing fold, but is far from official policy.

“I am advocating a [25%] flat tax,” says Bloom. “In order to have a flat tax, which is going to take away the problem of evasion and avoidance, it has to be cheaper to pay the tax than set up an offshore company or do all the things that people do to avoid taxes.

“And on this I am an expert. I spent 35 years in the City showing people how to invest money in trust funds and offshore funds in order to diminish – quite legitimately and legally – their tax,” he adds.

At the last general election, though, UKIP backed a 31% flat rate, which left the party open to attacks of elitism, even as it tried to ally itself with the average voter. Under the old proposals, many Brits – the majority whom are in the UK’s basic tax bracket of 20% - felt that they would be paying more, rather than less, despite UKIP’s pledges to slash VAT and to do away with supplementary taxes like National Insurance.

The problem is that even if the majority of Brits are left paying less - which may well be the case with a 25% rate - Brits on the whole want to see the rich taxed more. In other words, the 25% rate is not a vote winner, which leaves the party in a political pickle.

Farage has now flip-flopped on the idea, recently telling media he has converted to adopting a 40% top rate because “that is seen to be fairer. Whether that’s right or not, I think it’s seen to be fairer.”"

25% flat tax rate is sensible idea. Perhaps not radical enough, but at least sensible.

One can't believe sensible things politicians say though.

Will the 25% be applied retrospectively?