John Humphrys failed to land a blow on Cameron in his Today interview earlier this morning. He tried to assert that the policy is unworkable, but Cameron pointed out that it works in the USA and Canada. And in his press conference Gordon Brown just resorted to the kind of remarks that put people off politics. He lamely said that the "figures do not add up" and "serious times call for serious policies". Well, thanks for that insight Gordon. He continued...
We have taken some action already and we are prepared to look at further action. That's the way to get the economy through this difficult time. One initiative here and there is not going to make the difference. What you need is a co-ordinated strategy and preferably a co-ordinated strategy across the world and not just in one country.Is that really the best he can do? I suppose should be grateful he didn't come out with his usual mantras of "right man for the job" etc. To say "one initiative here and there is going to make no difference" is ludicrous when that's the very hallmark of his own government.
David Cameron scored a home run this morning, and Brown's response proves he knows it.
But that should not be the end of the matter. Nick Clegg is right to point out that it's not just the badly off who will be hurting from this Labour sponsored recession. Conservatives should not forget about the middle classes. They deserve some help too, and I hope David Cameron and George Osborne will soon tell us their ideas for easing the tax burden on middle class people.
33 comments:
Please, let's not talking about "scoring home runs". We are English, not Americans - although you wouldn't know it to look at some of our media.
How about "scored a six"?
Oh yea! what about the companies who finish current workers and retake on workers for whom they get a tax break? And it pretty much stops current workers getting better jobs as they won't even be considered. I'm not a Labour supporter and don't really want to wee in Cameron's cheerios but he doesn't have a clue how it will pan out in reality!
Home run?
We don't play the US version of rounders here Iain....
I think you have a point, even as a lefty i accept that. However, much like the council tax freeze they proposed, i think you have to see how many companies would take up this offer. It is all well and good to keep saying it is 'costed' but that also means that it can be give and take to the point of not being taken up by companies.
Of course the nature of being in opposition is sensible proposals that dont get enacted. I think 'home run' is a bit OTT, but your point on Brown's response has gravity.
Ah! but the rest of the world is going to listen to Gordon and then get us out of his mess!
He's deluded!
Don't forget... "It's the rest of the world"
I have that feeling that this phrase will be repeated often.
It's a stupid, beureacratic, socialist style thinktank scheme Iain. I really amd beginning to despair at the so called Tory opposition's performance in recent weeks.
Of course it's costed , it won't cost anything, simply because no-one is taking people on, long-term unemployed or not.
This is no incentive to keep people on, if anything it's an incentive to speed up the firing process, especially of the lower-skilled.
"Home run"? Perleease Ian, no!
And I'm not sure his tax breaks are as good as you think. It's more tinkering, and most small businesses would need a few hours with their accountant to figure out how it works and by how much they would benefit.
Why can't anyone keep it simple?
Too little, and almost too late. Conservatives need big radical policies that will neutralise the axis of despair. Angularity. Real Change. Daring to be unpopular. Cameron must be a signpost and not a weathervane.
This is farting about and curiously, not that i am accusing anybody, this sounds like a cut and paste from a press release.
Employers guide to avoid National Insurance:
10 Sack your employees
20 Hire unemployed employees
30 Wait a year
40 goto 10
Verity's Lovechild - loved your comment about being English and not Americans. One would have thought the whole of the UK were Americans basking in the post-coital bliss following the American Elections. You can't have it both ways, you know. How about this - you all keep your opinions to yourself about what goes on in America and we will keep our sports terms to ourselves.
I work in a small company doing the admin and accounts, and no one here is going 'Wow, this proposal by Cameron does the trick'. Have you thought through the paperwork that will be involved in this? Look at the small print, and it's another piece of bureaucratic fun and games. (I could take it apart line by line, but I have some work to do.) Worse though, it's quite irrelevant in the face of tens of thousands of job losses. How about telling the British people that the party is over, the bubbles have burst, that government spending has to be cut, personal spending has to be cut, etc etc (see endless other contributions to sundry political blogs from people every bit as frustrated as me that there is such a feeble opposition to this lousy government.
I'm not sure about this policy (and I own a small business). It looks complicated and discriminatory - why should someone out of work for 13 weeks be treated any differently to someone out of work for 10 or 12 weeks? With seasonal workers (in horticulture, agriculture and retail), are those who have just left/been made redundant from another job going to be seriously disadvantaged compared to those who have been unemployed for a while? I don't think it will help workers find new work quickly - if anything, it might increase the time low-skilled workers take to find a new position. For those on a low income, three months out of work instead of three weeks might make the difference between keeping up with the mortgage and losing their home. I consider myself a Conservative, but this policy is flawed. Fundamentally.
verity's lovechild.....
More of an "own goal" with this policy I think.
Cameron and Gideon show yet again why they are unfit for purpose.
This is at best moving the deck chairs, as the ship starts to go down and it will be forgotten by thursday.
Call me Dave, had the opportunity to take Brown on with a radical change, from failed tax and spend socialism and ducked the challenge yet again.
From being an eminently winnable election a couple of months ago, it is drawing into a bloody hard battle with no obvious winner.
Frankly, when we have a government as awful as this one, speaks volumes for the current ineptitude and sheer cowardice at the head of the tory party.
This revolting, repressive, fascistic government should be replaced as soon as possible, the trouble is, call me Dave just looks like one of them, more worryingly, he sounds just like one of them too.
It's too complicated and too specific. It's meaningless and will achieve nothing.
Just like the shiny-foreheaded fellow.
The Humphries interview got on my wick. One of the questions lobbed at Cameron was why the Govt hadn't picked this idea up and wasn't that in itself evidence that the policy wouldn't work. Surely thats for Brown to answer? Cameron made the point it worked in other countries but still - "But why hasn't the govt chosen this approach?"
If anything I would expect an interviewer to be better briefed - to be able to look at Cameron's proposals from different angles, maybe ask pertinent questions about the underlying theory and draw on empirical evidence. Not just say "But Gordon Brown doesn't like it so isn't it a crock of sh!t?" More specifically couldn't Humphries have checked for himself about the success or otherwise of this policy in Canada or elsewhere and respond to Cameron's specific point rather than referring back to Brown?
Do we really have to keep paying our TV licence ....?
Better than nothing, I suppose, but (1) it's overly complicated; (2) it does nothing for those who are in work but struggling to pay bills - increasing personal allowances would be more helpful; and (3) does nothing to address the fact that we don't save enough and are being landed with enormous debt. Removing tax from savings (perhaps to an upper limit) would help the prudent/pensioners and make it worthwhile to save again. It would show that the Conservatives care about sound money and the people who are trying to do the best for themselves and their families. And if we save banks can lend and companies have money for investment. We're not going to get the economy going again without such saving: borrowing money to invest/spend is what got us into this mess and, as sure as hell, is not the right way to get us out of it, particularly not with the levels of debt we have now.
Agree though that the Tories have been pathetic over the last few weeks. They really need to up their game; they have a real fight on their hands and aren't, to my mind, showing that they have the ruthlessness and steel to sock it to the government or the passion and anger at the waste of the last 11 years or the real desire to make changes for the better. It's all footling around at the edges. Do they really want power, in short? And do they know why and what they're going to do it, if they get it? If they do they've failed to communicate it.
I think the comments from small business owners say it all. Its a Brownian idea - overly bureaucratic, expensive to implement, and unlikely to have much impact. Better to look at bankruptcy laws to find ways to limit mass lay-offs, and above all get a big idea on fiscal stimulus. The Libdems, surprisingly, have stolen a march on the Tories here: they have a simple big idea, whcih is what opposition parties should have. A cut in income tax for the lower paid is the obvious answer, paid for by some shift in taxes onto the well-off, and some cuts on non-productive government spending. There's public spending (eg I-D cards, management consulting in MOD, environmental health officers in Guildford all come to mind) which could be cut without producing much unemployment.
Sorry Dave it is just another 'revolving door' policy - rather like the one on incapacity benefit which you and the present government have jumped into without considering the side-effects.
Ken Clarke on a TV interview yesterday came over far better.
I think 'Call me Dave' is suddenly finding that he will have to do something to win, instead of just keeping quiet while Gordon imploded.
Is a "Home Run" an Americanism for own goal?
As George Osborne would say. It's a tax con.
Iain, I know it is somewhat a fruitless task to come in here and explain the truth (dish the dirt) of Conservative failure but, someone has to do it so I volunteer.
Dave at least is trying. The problem the Country has and the problem Europe has and the problem the whole world has, is that it is no time for a NOVICE!
We know that Dave and Gideon can 'balance the books', We know this. It's not new. We believe them. Most of us reckon they can, will and would do, if allowed.
The world doesn't want to give them the opportunity at the moment.
Dave needs better ideas and far reaching and downright outrageous new policies on personal spending from the employer to the employee.
I could get hung for treason at this point but to me, it is obvious that Dave is on the wrong track.People in this part of the new Century need bang for their buck and they need to see and feel wanted and not used. By this I mean- value for money.
I reckon Gordon is going about doing this in a roundabout sort of way. I think he may be misled into thinking a few pence here and there will force me to spend. Not sure about that.
Dave needs to give me something(for nothing) but allow me to benefit by that in a way that gives me a value whilst at the same time making me financially better off, if not secure.
In that instance, the baliffs will be redundant and my long term self worth will be somewhere in region of 'Land fit for heroes'.
I normally charge for this service, but I genuinely feel sorry for Dave who is seen by all as flailing around. Gimmicks no. British policy yes.
Tories of 79-97 got it mostly wrong. I know you'll disagree, but almost all of our current woes can be dropped at the door of Thatcher and Major.But at least they had vision and guts.Crap as they were.
Are you saying that the Cameron announcement was a good 'political' announcement to undermine Brown? If so then it might have some merit. If not then it is flawed, because it would be better to state the bleedin' obvious that tax and spend is impoverishing us all and must be reversed by cutting taxes on private business as one of the first steps. As an employer I can state categorically that the employers NICO is a tax on employment, as also is PAYE. Mr Cameron's tinkering type policy will not solve the over-taxation of business and individuals based on the mistaken belief that the State (and especially New Labour) can spend money better than the private citizen.
The announcement was hugely disappointing. The proposal has no resonance with most people (how many will be owners of businesses and actually be recruiting new staff over the next year or so?).
Feezing Council Tax was a good idea. Cutting waste in public services is a good idea (half the savings to reduce national borrowing, half to go to people in reduced income tax). Cutting big future projects (ID cards, Trident replacement) is a good idea.
Complex rule changes are 'Brownist' ideas and worth a sub-sub-paragraph at best.
A 'home run'? You mean an own goal, surely?
Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear oh dear. When the Speccy and The Telegraph and many of your own erudite commenters giving this announcement the bum's rush, you know that Dave is in trouble.
So folks, a little poll,
on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being a Tub of Lard and 10 being Mrs Thatcher, where do you place David Cameron? (Please, no Labour Trolls, this is bad enough for people who want Labour out)
Gary Elsby's been on the daft pills again.
Look, sunshine, no-one says that Thatcher was infallible or even that she got it all right - she did not. But she was correct in her analysis of why the UK is in decline. Such decline went into reverse under her and was heading the right way until this incompetent spendthrift shower grabbed the reins of power by deceit and unfullillable elctoral promises which have now caused them to run out of (our) money. The history of leftyism is one of endless economic ruin and wealth destruction which has always hit the poorest hardest. Sound money, low State borrowing and low personal debt is part of the cure. Low taxes and low state spending is the other part as the State always spends money badly and on the wrong things. Get it through your thick head that it is leftyism that is making this worse, that and the appalling lack of democratic accountability in the UK that was bad even before New Labour got in and has got immeasurably worse since.
Never forget that time is the only difference between Socialsim and totalitarianism. It grows out of the very core of Socialisim that it will always seek to force people to do what they don't want to do. And it is not right to say that Socialism is right so people must do as they are told. People know better than States just what is best for them and their neighbours. The State cannot ever have enough information to know what is right in everyone's life. When this fact dawns on Labour governments they always resort to coercion of one sort or another to force the issue. And this is where we are now. A death throw of Socialsim given a small stay of execution by a self generated financial crisis that the most deceitful Prime Minister in history has managed to externalise onto a hated minority - the banks - much in the same way as Hitler externalised the post WW1 German situation onto the Jews. He is total politics and totally economically useless.
Believe in Tory tax cuts when you see them, and not before.
The Tories have form, you know...
lola. spot on.
NI break for firms employing people who have been out of a job for 13 weeks or less?? Looks like a subsidy for existing churn businesses without increasing their employment numbers. Just hitting the tax take. Pathetic. And that's the headline.
I thought the Tories were in favour of simplifying the tax system?
Doesn't really look like it, does it?
the problems with this are legion. And while Cameron can state 'it worked in the US' very few of us have any idea if he is right and what role the different circumstances between the two countries will play.
I can't see why many companies that are worried about expanding in a fragile economy will take the plunge just because they save a little bit of NI. And they need to recruit a specific type of person (unemployed for X time) which adds complexity.
Also, and as someone else already mentioned, if I was an unscrupulous sort I'd be sacking a load of people and rehiring from the steps of the job centre.
Aonther worthless Tory policy. All the £2500 bonuses will go to those who create 'new' low-wage McJobs as no self-respecting employer will advertise for someone who has been unemployed for three months. They need people with more skills.
Post a Comment