C_steam

Of course they didn't accurately predict immigration and oil prices - who could have? But they were fully costed when they were policies based on the facts at the time - and more importantly because they were fully costed the impact of the changes can be accurately updated and taxes / tax take adjusted to take this into account.

Anyway - false argument since pointing out a deficiency in another party (whether true or false) is no defence for UKIP's complete failure to accurately cost anything. For ***** sake, they can't even account for their call centres, declare donations or payments to and from MEP's.

It seems you would prefer to read policies based purely on 'what would make us popular' than any that would stand up to harsh financial scrutiny. So go on, how would UKIP pay for all of these things? Answers in money terms please, not in some hopeful wishlist of cutting quangos, making efficiency savings or the suchlike.

__________________
--------------------------------------------------

Users on ignore list: None. I've got to have people to laugh at.
Cowardly Posters* list: BobFM, Bellatrix.*People who post personal insults then refuse to reply

.

B.A.Ware

I totally dispute this figure, this is exactly what is wrong with UKIP it plays the same game as the main three parties exaggerating the truth for political gain.
There is no way we would save this amount of money by leaving the EU, i work in the industrial sector and we have to conform to many EU directives this would not change if we were to continue to trade inside the EU this would be the same for most businesses that trade within the EU.

I'm afraid when you offer people magic solutions they tend not to believe you, exactly the same as theres no such thing as a free lunch.

__________________
We’re not just about Europe.

mrabody

I wouldn't call my proposals a hopeful wishlist. They were merely a suggestion that I think the party would do well to look into. During the last years of the Major government, Labour got mileage of accusing the Tories of creating a Quango state (the Tories had, to that point created a total of about 70 Quangos). Labour has poured billions into the NHS much of which has not reached frontline services but has instead been wasted. Are you seriously suggesting that there is not fat to be cut?

In any event this is the programme that was followed by the Canadian government and I believe the Australian government in the early 1990s. Serious program reviews, cuts to department budgets, and restrained spending growth. Both countries' governments have now had budget surpluses for several years (over a decade in Canada's case). It's not a pie in the sky wishlist, and to suggest that it is simply betrays your ignorance and lack of inquisitiveness.

I do agree that our spending proposals should be fully costed. I merely offered a suggestion as to how it could be accomplished.

Anthony Butcher

It is indeed an avenue to be pursued, but as discussed elsewhere, cutting unnecessary jobs in Government isn't as efficient as one might hope because it simultaneously increases the unemployment costs. I am sure that there is a formula somewhere that states the ratio... i.e. for every x pounds saved by cutting jobs, it costs y pounds in dole money, retraining, extra admin, payoffs etc.

It is not cheap to sack people, and all public sector employees will also have pensions that will have to be maintained too.

__________________
If you care about what's in your food and where it comes from, then get it labelled!
Label My Food - http://www.labelmyfood.org.uk

eublues

I agree that costing our policies is desirable. Presumably someone on the ball could produce a summary of approximate costings across all our policies - that would be a useful paper in its own right.

ukip kipper

A quick back-of-envelope type of calculation, I think yes it does add up.

An extra 1p in the pound on income tax equates to about £2-3 billion per year extra for the Treasury.

1 & 2. Cutting income tax / corporation tax brings other savings through simplifying the tax structure. The cut in Income Tax is really increasing the thresholds, which would reduce the need for some current benefits. Flat Tax stimulates economic growth so again some money clawed back.

3. Does not generate that much revenue at the moment anyway. The rich find loopholes, the poor don't pay it anyway. Only the middle classes are hit, when they don't realise they're liable. Isn't it something like 6% of all estates pay IHT?

4. About £1.5bn/year inititally? There would be long-term benefits from rebuilding our fishing industry but they may already be included in the £50-60bn.
5. About £5bn/year?
6. About £10bn/year?
7. Savings on procurement to secure more troops; possibly an additional £8bn/year or so needed?
8. These will be one-off costs, part of a much longer plan. If there's a £50bn cost over the next 15 years, still only talking about £3-4bn/year. With oil prices high and set to continue to rise over that time, there will be a long-term saving.

Anthony Butcher

UKIP costed this one at £13bn per year.

I did some calculations for the prison places and that comes to £3.5Bn per year extra roughly to run them, and a build cost of £17Bn.

I don't know how much halving council tax would cost.

__________________
If you care about what's in your food and where it comes from, then get it labelled!
Label My Food - http://www.labelmyfood.org.uk

Tim Worstall

Worth noting that the income tax pledge is in fact costed....or at least this is what I recall John Whittaker actually saying when he announced the policy in Bournemouth.

The books do not balance: it's imperative that we move to a rational tax system, a flat tax with a high personal allowance (so as to take the working poor out of the tax net). But doing so will indeed mean a gap between expenditure and tax collections until the supply side effects (growing economy etc) work through, a gap which would be covered by borrowing.

I'm working from memory here of a speech I heard a year ago but I think it's something in the £25-£30 billion range that would be borrowed to cover this gap.

That might not please all, I know, but it does make it a great deal easier to balance the other expenditures and cuts.

eublues

One thing UKIP would need to do right away is stop the PFI deception so that the true cost of things is apparent to the public now and not left for the next generation. The scope for better use of taxes is enormous.

Anthony Butcher

It's a hard sell though - to increase Government borrowing, and massively increase Government spending at the same time.

I certainly wouldn't vote for it. In fact, people want economic stability, especially now. UKIP's plans might have been theoretically workable a couple of years ago, but no sane person would take such a massive gamble at a time like this

__________________
If you care about what's in your food and where it comes from, then get it labelled!
Label My Food - http://www.labelmyfood.org.uk