Vote Winner?

[ToraToraTora]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32506490
Of course it will upset the lefties who love spending other peoples money but It will seem attractive to the conributors among us.

[jim360]

That is just the political equivalent of "look, no hands!" Utterly bizarre.

[whiskeryron]

Methinks Dave is getting desperate

[Gromit]

" Read my lips - no new taxes. "

It worked for Bush, but he didn't keep his promise.

If the Conservatives win we will not pay the same or less tax. They will extend VAT to include more items which are currently exempt. You will be paying 20% on items you previously paid 0%.

Only a foolish Chancellor would tie his own hands behind his back to the task of raising enough Tax to straighten the books. This will make it a lot harder to get out of deficit on our national payments. But Osborne is not that foolish. He has already worked out how to cut the exemptions and allowances in his favour.

So it is a gimmick. It could work.

[whiskeryron]

TTT if you really believe the political propaganda you are being fed then you have my deepest sympathy. One week into Dave retaining prime ministership & all promises will be shelved. How can you possibly believe a party who for 5 years have been screwing the electorate into the ground as hard as they can are miraculously going to suddenly give everything away ?

[ToraToraTora]

......err and you trust Ed? right oh ron!

[mushroom25]

//They will extend VAT to include more items which are currently exempt. You will be paying 20% on items you previously paid 0%. //

do you know what items will be subject to this gromit? it would be a very brave administration that decides to tax knowledge, safety, disability aids or essential foodstuffs......

[Gromit]

mushroom

There are literally thousands of exempt or lower taxed items - take your pick.

https://www.gov.uk/rates-of-vat-on-different-goods-and-services

All those leaflets that pile through your letterbox are not charged VAT on their printing. That would be a good start.

[bazwillrun]

"Mr Cameron said VAT would not be extended to new items"

[mushroom25]

//"Mr Cameron said VAT would not be extended to new items"//

and it won't. but there are a lot of items that are subject to VAT, but for which the tax is levied at 0%. so all these could be re-rated to 10% or 20% and slippery Dave keeps his word. but if tax were raised on some of these items, a storm would ensue.

[dave50]

What's wrong with cutting spending to cut the deficit. That's what you do when you over spend, you cut your cloth accordingly, it's not rocket science. This craze for wanting more and more public spending is ridiculous.

[jim360]

There have already been sizable public spending cuts. It's possible in principle to cut further of course but in attempting to reduce the size of the deficit it's generally better to increase income as well as reduce expenditure. Meeting in the middle, as it were. By imposing a limit on the money coming in Cameron is drastically reducing his options for dealing with the deficit, and having missed the target to get rid of the deficit by 201 it will be very hard to get rid of it by 2020 either.

[ichkeria]

It has been pointed out that the Tories tried this before and had to backtrack
Desperation Street this is. With 8 days to go to polling day, one wonders why they are only mentioning in now (!)

[sandyRoe]

If he can't increase revenue by raising taxes will he need to cut benefits?

[naomi24]

//It worked for Bush, but he didn't keep his promise. //

But was it enshrined in law? I don't think so.

[andy-hughes]

Dave's going to the 'sleeves rolled up / hair slightly ruffled / air punching / I really mean it!' position.

A millionaire politician looking for votes and trying to look like a serious (hard!) working member of the electorate is like a dog walking on it's hind legs - it is not that it is done badly, it is that one is surprised to see it done at all.

(Apologies to Doctor Johnson).

[Jackdaw33]

Actually I think it's rather silly and does the Tories no favours. A law is not necessary; a pledge would suffice. Apart from being a waste of parliamentary time, laws can be repealed in an instant at the whim of the government, providing they have the support of parliament. I am rather disappointed; I thought Dave had more nous than to go for gimmicks like this.

[naomi24]

I’ve no doubt that just like his millionaire rival he is a serious and hard-working member of the electorate.

[mikey4444]

I'm with the first two posts on here....it smacks of desperation. dave can't get ahead of Labour in the Polls and stay ahead.

Electoral calculus has them neck and neck at 280 seats each, as of today. That is 28 down from 2010 for the Tories and 22 up for Labour.

Any law that would be passed could be unpicked whenever it suited any Government in the future.

[naomi24]

Mikey, you keep banging on about the odd few points in your favourite polls, but has it occurred to you that Labour isn’t exactly running miles ahead so really you couldn’t call them popular, could you?

[jim360]

Indeed, in his favourite poll Labour is currently two points down on the Tories. A late swing away from UKIP might just accentuate that.

Remarkable that despite being two points (or about half a million votes) down on the Tories, Labour are currently projected to have the same number of seats...