Car Boot Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 What is the margin of error in the UKs accounts? For comparison, the UK National Audit Office says material error (including fraud) for the UK government was equivalent to only 0.02% of total expenditure in 2015-16. The EU has a significant material error (including fraud) of 3.8 per cent of total expenditure. The EU accountants also had an ‘adverse opinion’ of the legality and regularity of EU payments, a term which is used only in serious cases of error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Joker Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 For comparison, the UK National Audit Office says material error (including fraud) for the UK government was equivalent to only 0.02% of total expenditure in 2015-16. Really ? Is that all ? 0.02% ? The way the tories are going on about benefit fraud, you’d be forgiven for thinking that 100% of benefit claims were fraudulent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 For comparison, the UK National Audit Office says material error (including fraud) for the UK government was equivalent to only 0.02% of total expenditure in 2015-16. The EU has a significant material error (including fraud) of 3.8 per cent of total expenditure. The EU accountants also had an ‘adverse opinion’ of the legality and regularity of EU payments, a term which is used only in serious cases of error. So what's the £490bn hole recently discovered in UK Plc's balance sheet? The statistical error? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Car Boot Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 (edited) Really ? Is that all ? 0.02% ? The way the tories are going on about benefit fraud, you’d be forgiven for thinking that 100% of benefit claims were fraudulent Some UK government department budgets have material error rates bigger than the EU budget. But overall UK spending error rates are significantly lower than EU overall spending error rates. ---------- Post added 31-10-2017 at 12:55 ---------- This happens at small and large companies too. No large company ever has 100% accurate accounts. Just look at the number of amended accounts that get submitted to companies house. The EU is a political and economic union of member states. It is not supposed to be a private profit making company. So why compare it to them? Why is there a special requirement for EU accounts to be 100% error free? There is no "special requirement" for the EU accounts to be 100 per cent error free. But, to be clear of significant material error, they should be 2 per cent (or less) error free. ---------- Post added 31-10-2017 at 13:09 ---------- So what's the £490bn hole recently discovered in UK Plc's balance sheet? The statistical error? It appears that the Office for National Statistics overestimated UK international assets, and underestimated foreign debt. How this relates to the EU budget is anyone's guess. Statistics gathering and accounts auditing are not comparable. Not even remotely. Edited October 31, 2017 by Car Boot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 It appears that the Office for National Statistics overestimated UK international assets, and underestimated foreign debt. Statistics gathering and accounts auditing are not comparable. Not even remotely. Please explain to me how do you get to determine that such accounting entries as "UK international assets" and "foreign debt" can be "overestimated" or "underestimated", without auditing accounts How this relates to the EU budget is anyone's guess.The "EU budget"? I thought we were talking about accounts? You know: assets (including such things as "UK international assets", reserves, etc.), liabilities (including such things "foreign debt"), cashflow, <...> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 Some UK government department budgets have material error rates bigger than the EU budget. But overall UK spending error rates are significantly lower than EU overall spending error rates. ---------- Post added 31-10-2017 at 12:55 ---------- The EU is a political and economic union of member states. It is not supposed to be a private profit making company. So why compare it to them? There is no "special requirement" for the EU accounts to be 100 per cent error free. But, to be clear of significant material error, they should be 2 per cent (or less) error free. ---------- Post added 31-10-2017 at 13:09 ---------- It appears that the Office for National Statistics overestimated UK international assets, and underestimated foreign debt. How this relates to the EU budget is anyone's guess. Statistics gathering and accounts auditing are not comparable. Not even remotely. Even at 2% it’s still not enough to base the termination of membership on. And your 0.02% is bull. Do you need to be reminded of the repeated errors from our governments: Labour with taking PFI off the books, Tories with their disastrous deficit reduction failures. No way are UK government finances that squeaky clean. Not a hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 Even at 2% it’s still not enough to base the termination of membership on. And your 0.02% is bull. Do you need to be reminded of the repeated errors from our governments: Labour with taking PFI off the books, Tories with their disastrous deficit reduction failures. No way are UK government finances that squeaky clean. Not a hope. How much did the NI government waste on wood-pellet subsidies? Might not be classed as 'fraud', but should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 (edited) Good news, it turns out that the government is hiring lots UK to hire 8,000 staff by next year to gear up for Brexit Bad news, it turns out that it's not nurses, carers or police officers The revenue and customs department expects to recruit 3,000 to 5,000 additional staff next year, as it prepares for new trading arrangements once Britain leaves the EU's single market and customs union. Around 3,000 new posts have already been created across government to work on Brexit, including 300 lawyers. I for one am very much looking forward to witness Hammond's prowess at budgetary sleight-of-hand on 22 November EDIT: How much did the NI government waste on wood-pellet subsidies? Might not be classed as 'fraud', but should be.About half a £-billion. Concerns of fraud were raised initially in 2013 and again in 2014, when a whistleblower contacted Foster to raise concerns about the scheme. The whistleblower stated that the scheme was "flawed" and the concerns of civil servants "were ignored" after she reported abuse of the scheme, as property owners were taking advantage of the scheme by heating properties that were previously unheated.[7] It is claimed that the team, which comprised ten officials, investigated the whistleblower's claims and "did not believe the informant" and did not report back to Foster.[7] Another whistleblower wrote a letter in January 2016 to tell Foster, who had by then become First Minister, about an "empty" farm shed that was "being heated for the subsidy".[7] The scheme did not take into account that properties that were not previously heated could now be heated for a profit. The lack of cost control led to the Northern Ireland Executive committing a figure of £490m, based on the NIAO report 2015/16, to the scheme over 20 years. HM Treasury contacted the Executive in light of the huge bill and said that the Executive would have to find the funds for it.[8][9] The projected £490m spend would be spread over 20 years, as the participants of the scheme signed contracts with DETI and their payments were to last for 20 years. When news first broke of the botched scheme, it was originally thought that the total cost to the budget would be £400m, but this was later revised up to £490m.[9] Northern Ireland receives a block payment each year from HM Treasury, and the block payment will need to be adjusted as a result of the money committed to the scheme. Arlene Foster left DETI and became Minister for Finance, leaving Jonathan Bell to succeed her as DETI Minister. After news of the affair broke, Bell gave an exclusive interview to the BBC Radio Ulster programme The Nolan Show, where he said that DUP special advisers and Foster "intervened" to prevent the closure of the scheme. He also claimed that Foster tried to "cleanse the records" by hiding her involvement in delaying the scheme's closure.[10] In the period that he says he tried to close the scheme and the scheme's actual closure, there was a spike in applications which caused more money to be allocated to the scheme. After the interview, Bell was suspended from the DUP. (Wiki) These are the very people which Theresa May currently relies upon in Parliament. By the way. Edited October 31, 2017 by L00b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ez8004 Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 Good news, it turns out that the government is hiring lots UK to hire 8,000 staff by next year to gear up for Brexit Bad news, it turns out that it's not nurses, carers or police officers That is all good and well. However, once Brexit has happened, are those jobs going to go as well? After all, they are only recruited for Brexit in the first place. Secondly, if we assume that the 75k lost jobs in the city is correct. How are we really paying for these extra civil servants? If the tax receipts from those jobs alone are no longer there as well as the business those jobs bring into the UK economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 That is all good and well. However, once Brexit has happened, are those jobs going to go as well? After all, they are only recruited for Brexit in the first place.I think it's quite clear that the bulk of that recruitment is to staff customs & excise jobs, which can only be maintained post-Brexit once the UK stands on its own feet in the big wide world. Some of those jobs might get shed over time as the UK negotiates ever more FTAs here, there and everywhere, of course. But that's not going to happen before a fair few years at least, as we know. Secondly, if we assume that the 75k lost jobs in the city is correct. How are we really paying for these extra civil servants? If the tax receipts from those jobs alone are no longer there as well as the business those jobs bring into the UK economy.For that one, not a clue I'm afraid. Less tax revenue with which to fund more public jobs, that's "magic money tree" territory. And that newly-missing £490bn isn't going to help Hammond secure preferential borrowing rates. Which is why I am (still ) very much looking forward to see how Hammond is going to square that round peg come 22 November (but then, you never know, he might well pull an 11th-hour resignation...like the 2 or 3 DExEU Ministers who recently quit, after reading -sorry, skimming the summaries of- the 58 sectoral analyses ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts