Share this content
37

David Gauke - pity he wasn’t expelled sooner

David Gauke - pity he wasn’t expelled sooner

Didn't find your answer?

Having had to suffer the consequences of the utterly pointless MTD fiasco over the last 6 months I cannot contain my glee at the news that David Gauke, the clown who imposed it on us, has been sacked by Boris.

Every time I see him on the television he just makes my blood boil and more often than not whatever he seems to touch he seems to get wrong. He seems to be blessed with the same judgement skills as Theresa May so having seen him support the vote to prevent a no deal Brexit I now know that a no deal Brexit must unquestionably be the best option for Britain.

Replies (37)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

RLI
By lionofludesch
05th Sep 2019 07:59

Blame the fools who elected him in the first place.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By thomas34
05th Sep 2019 08:23

Couldn't agree more with Anne. Let's hope Boris isn't pressurised into changing his mind. The sooner we see the back of that supercilious, attention-seeking man the better.

Thanks (4)
By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
05th Sep 2019 09:21

I don't like the man, but the manner in which he and all the others have been sacked is outrageous, not least considering the person who sacked him did the exact same thing several times in the past 6 months.

of course if you read the Telegraph, or try to read the big words the Daily Mail I imagine its all wonderful judging by the bizarre front pages this morning which seems to centre on personal attacks on Corbyn (!!?!?!) and nothing at all to do with what happened yesterday.

Ie Boris loses majority, sacks 20 MP's, loses 3 votes (out of 3), and puts the back up the rest of the party. So probably the most disastrous start to for any prime minister, ever. But nope, lets trot out a today's propaganda line from Cummings.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-49588171

Thanks (7)
Replying to ireallyshouldknowthisbut:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
05th Sep 2019 11:36

One has to agree 100% with that analysis. On the plus side this has at least made it a very easy and convenient way to test how dumb someone is if they continue to read and believe that guff.

That said, one cannot blame DC for exploiting dumb people in this manner in his cause. There are many of them after all - as evidenced almost daily on this forum alas.

He is understandably terrified of a post 31.10.19 election for very obvious reasons (that the dumb are pretty oblivious to - as they don't read or understand the actual real news published elsewhere).

Looking at the latest news today, it's clear BJ's brother has got the measure of him in all this (and who would know him better than that!).

Thanks (2)
Replying to ireallyshouldknowthisbut:
avatar
By CMPACDGDB
07th Sep 2019 17:14

Whatever your opinion of MTD, shouldn't we laud some-one who puts Country above politics? What will you answer when your grand-children ask "What did you do to stop BREXIT?"....
Stand up and be counted; like the 21 who did; they are heroes and deserve to be recognised as such.

Thanks (0)
Replying to CMPACDGDB:
RLI
By lionofludesch
07th Sep 2019 17:25

Or, of course, we could berate them for ignoring the clearly stated will of the people to leave.

Nothing's clear cut, is it ?

Thanks (2)
Replying to CMPACDGDB:
Tornado
By Tornado
07th Sep 2019 18:29

Interesting comment.

Surely someone who puts their Country first would do as the people tell them to do. After all, that is the job of politicians.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Tornado:
avatar
By johnhemming
07th Sep 2019 20:44

Actually, that is not how the constitution works. We elect representatives whose job is to study the issues and to decide what to do. We do not elect delegates.

I would not wish to have a system where representatives are merely delegates.

If we don't like what our representatives do we can vote for another representative at the next election.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Justin Bryant
05th Sep 2019 09:54

They're all mostly unprincipled liars let's face it (their job being mainly to lie as effectively as possible) and he is possibly one of my least favourite MPs (for the particular reason of his support of retrospective tax legislation despite the Government's pretty clear Protocol undertaking to the contrary), but one has to nevertheless respect the fact he is being principled and not lying for a change on this one important occasion in the face of pretty harsh treatment (unlike most others).

Thanks (2)
By Paul D Utherone
05th Sep 2019 12:23

How to know your crowd. Compare & contrast The (supersoarawy) Sun headlines in England & Scotland.

https://twitter.com/MsKateLyons/status/1169493075665702912

Thanks (1)
Tornado
By Tornado
05th Sep 2019 17:43

I couldn't agree more.

He leaves a trail of destruction behind him and has shown contempt for his own party members who elected Boris as the leader of the party on a specific pledge. He deserves to be thrown out of the party if he is unable to do what the Party members have instructed him to do.

Thanks (2)
Replying to Tornado:
By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
05th Sep 2019 18:09

So you think Johnson, Mogg and all the rest of the Brexit-Utras should have been thrown out when they want against May's deal?

After all they must presumably by your logic showed contempt for their own party members who elected May as the leader of the party on a specific pledge.

Thanks (2)
Replying to ireallyshouldknowthisbut:
Tornado
By Tornado
05th Sep 2019 20:19

On this occasion, MPs were told specifically that if they voted against the Government, they would lose the Party Whip. If any of these 21 felt uneasy about that, all they had to do was abstain.

They did not abstain and deliberately voted against the party in order to try and defeat the Government. Note that over 300 MP's managed to vote with the Government, which is 52 more than the Labour Party have MPs in total. No wonder Labour ran away from the opportunity for a General Election when the offer was actually made.

Thanks (3)
Replying to Tornado:
avatar
By johnhemming
05th Sep 2019 20:25

Historically the removal of the whip like this would only occur on confidence votes. Confidence votes were the votes which would remove the government if they failed. This was not a confidence vote.

In the end, however, the procedures of the Conservative party enable the party leadership to sack anyone if they wish to (cf Howard Flight). Furthermore Phillip Hammond would be best not to waste any money on legal action.

AIUI they are also saying that abstaining resulted in the removal of the whip.

The constrasts with the permissive approach to Boris Johnson when he voted against the party whip on the Withdrawal Agreement. Had that passed through (not that I think it is a good deal, I think the best deal is the remain) then May would have achieve Brexit.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tornado:
By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
06th Sep 2019 09:45

MPs were told abstaining would lose the Whip too, they had to actively vote for something they thought was wrong.

The main point is they ought not to be threatened in the first place. The whole point of our parliament, is you elect people to represent a constituency, you don't elect a party as such. By trying to bully and intimidate MP's to vote away from their core principles you lose any sense of what they are there for in the first place, and the decent ones will stick 2 fingers up to it. Some of the people they kicked out are their best talent. Its a massive own goal for Boris and will quicken his downfall.

"running away" from the election sounds like you have been reading the pro-tory tabloids. Having an election solves nothing other than having a different bunch of MP's facing the same issues. Just as having a new PM has done nothing to change the facts on the ground, other than it would appear make it far worse for Brexiteers.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By GHarr497688
05th Sep 2019 18:08

I have now read his speech when MTD was in its inception and one thing that he got wrong was the fact that a large number on people do not understand tax and government figures show that many people still lack digital skills , bringing digital skills with accounting and tax skills in an overly complex tax system is hardly the same as paying a bill online, ordering a Pizza takeaway , shopping for a holiday or booking a Doctors appointment . Why on earth didn't someone tell him before Taxpayers money was thrown down the drain ?

Thanks (3)
Replying to GHarr497688:
RLI
By lionofludesch
05th Sep 2019 18:53

GHarr497688 wrote:
Why on earth didn't someone tell him before Taxpayers money was thrown down the drain ?

Someone did.

Me.

But he took no gorm.

Thanks (1)
Replying to GHarr497688:
avatar
By johnhemming
05th Sep 2019 20:32

Whereas it is true to say that there are relatively few parliamentarians with a Scientific or Numerical background. It should be noted that many government policies are worked up in the civil service. I don't think it would be right to say that moving towards a digital tax system is specifically something thought up by David Gauke.

It should also be noted that there are people who think moving towards digital taxation is a good idea not just in the UK, but around the word. I personally think it is likely to reduce the tax gap as will the movement away from cash.

Thanks (0)
Replying to johnhemming:
RLI
By lionofludesch
06th Sep 2019 08:37

johnhemming wrote:

Whereas it is true to say that there are relatively few parliamentarians with a Scientific or Numerical background.

Are there any with common sense ?

Thanks (1)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By johnhemming
06th Sep 2019 09:18

lionofludesch wrote:

Are there any with common sense ?

How do you measure that?

Thanks (1)
Replying to johnhemming:
By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
06th Sep 2019 09:47

in the same way as you measure the "tax gap".

ie make it up, depending on your point of view!

Thanks (0)
Replying to ireallyshouldknowthisbut:
avatar
By johnhemming
06th Sep 2019 09:57

The tax gap can at least be quantified.

There is in fact a "Common Sense" party
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Sense_Party_(UK)

Which makes the essential error that it assumes that given the same set of facts different people will always come to the some conclusion.

There is a definition of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense

If you take the issue of Brexit, for example, you find that people who have more knowledge of how the political system operates tend to be less supportive of Brexit. (such as the two ex Chancellors expelled from the Tories on Tuesday)

Is that because they understand the implications in a better way or is it that inherently their reasoning is flawed and they have no "common sense"?

Thanks (0)
Replying to johnhemming:
RLI
By lionofludesch
07th Sep 2019 17:28

johnhemming wrote:

The tax gap can at least be quantified.

Oh ?? How ?

Are folk writing in, saying how much tax they've underpaid ?

I'm guessing no.

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By johnhemming
07th Sep 2019 19:04

In GBP.

Thanks (0)
Replying to johnhemming:
RLI
By lionofludesch
07th Sep 2019 19:14

johnhemming wrote:

In GBP.

John - let's be honest. The tax gap is just a made-up number.

It can never be quantified though it may be estimated.

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By johnhemming
07th Sep 2019 20:05

I accept that there is a limit as to the precision one can expect and it will involve a certain amount of estimation.

It is, however, still expressed as a quantity and hence quantified.

Thanks (0)
Replying to johnhemming:
RLI
By lionofludesch
07th Sep 2019 22:23

johnhemming wrote:

I accept that there is a limit as to the precision one can expect and it will involve a certain amount of estimation.

It is, however, still expressed as a quantity and hence quantified.

Ah John - you have a politician's spin.

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By johnhemming
08th Sep 2019 08:40

This is all a question of definitions. It is nothing to do with "spin". I admit I have been an unpaid "spin doctor" - (ie responsible in some way for public relations for some organisation or other) on and off since 1977. However, the word quantified does include things that are estimated.

Here is a thesaurus link
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/quantify

Thanks (0)
Replying to johnhemming:
RLI
By lionofludesch
08th Sep 2019 10:06

johnhemming wrote:

This is all a question of definitions. It is nothing to do with "spin". I admit I have been an unpaid "spin doctor" - (ie responsible in some way for public relations for some organisation or other) on and off since 1977. However, the word quantified does include things that are estimated.

Here is a thesaurus link
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/quantify

The downside of spin is that it reduces credibility and increases scepticism.

Thanks (1)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By johnhemming
08th Sep 2019 11:24

The question here is to what extent you can quantify "Common Sense" versus quantifying the "Tax Gap". Obviously the Tax Gap is quantified, but I have never seen anyone quantify Common Sense.

That is not a question of spin. It is a question of the meaning of words.

Thanks (0)
Replying to johnhemming:
Tornado
By Tornado
09th Sep 2019 00:41

I can quantify the tax gap quite easily at about 10p.

On average there will be just as many people overpaying tax as there are underpaying tax so it is likely that one cancels out the other.

My estimate will be as good as any other as no one actually knows what the tax gap is. That is just common sense.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tornado:
avatar
By johnhemming
09th Sep 2019 06:44

Common sense may not be quantifiable, but it does have a definition.

That is neither true nor common sense.

Thanks (0)
Replying to johnhemming:
RLI
By lionofludesch
09th Sep 2019 09:45

johnhemming wrote:

Common sense may not be quantifiable....

Why not ?

Just create a new unit of common sense and then estimate it.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tornado:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
09th Sep 2019 06:58

The difference is that it is legal to pay more tax than you might need to if you planned better. It is not legal to pay less tax than the rules permit.

I can well believe that John is right that, once it is embedded, MTD will be reducing tax avoidance at the dodgy end of the spectrum. It might, for example, reduce the temptation to rewrite history - something that too many accountants currently assist in doing.

And I can well believe that, partly in consequence, it puts a proper value on good tax planning - something that too many accountants in effect undervalue by assisting in, for example, rewriting history.

(These comments aren't aimed at you, btw. Take them [or ignore them :-)] as a general rant. I thought this thread was for general rants!)

Thanks (1)
Replying to johnhemming:
avatar
By GHarr497688
06th Sep 2019 19:45

I have hardly any knowledge of politics just of life and what it can throw at you.
I have had more then my fair share of trauma. If I was a politician I would not present a speech unless I understood what I was talking about. MTD has been proved to be good for some ( not for all ) . It went ahead and for me its been a nightmare. I am unable to comment on other Countries tax systems but I am told we have the most complicated tax system in the world and Government reports state that a large proportion of the population lack basic digital skills which would make MTD doomed to failure . I would think that most Taxpayers are simply entering 9 boxes into Software and paying more than they should for such Software.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By itp33asso
06th Sep 2019 12:29

@annneaccountant Why don't you stop dillydallying around and get straight to the point say what do you mean?

(Yes – I AN being facetious!)

Thanks (0)
Replying to itp33asso:
avatar
By itp33asso
06th Sep 2019 12:30

itp33asso wrote:

@annneaccountant Why don't you stop dillydallying around and get straight to the point say what do you mean?

(Yes – I AM being facetious!)

Thanks (0)
Share this content