Active discussions

Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Politics
Original poster

Danny Alexander avoided Capital Gains Tax

36 replies

longfingernailspaintedblue · 30/05/2010 22:59

According to a new Telegraph story.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/liberal-democrat-mps-expenses/7787519/Danny-Alexand er-new-Treasury-chief-avoided-capital-gains-tax-on-house.html

Seems they basically ignored the Lib Dems first time round, because they just weren't important enough, and are getting their pound of flesh now.

Hopefully this outright hypocrisy by the new Chief Secretary will kill off the insane Lib Dem plans to hike Capital Gains tax once and for all.

OP posts:
beanlet · 30/05/2010 23:46

"It seems paradoxical that they would want to undermine parliament and democracy, but they must have a good reason for doing so."

There can be NO good reasons for wanting to do such a thing! Whatever party one votes for.

beanlet · 30/05/2010 23:42

I agree that Laws and Alexander have done the wrong thing, and that they're hypocrites, etc. -- and also that the Lib Dems weren't given the same kind of scrutiny over their expenses as Labour and the Tories, and that they should have been at the time.

But I'm also seriously quite scared that a bunch of unelected journalists who don't give a shit about anything but scandal could bring down the coalition or at the very least fatally undermine the Treasury by doing this now. Now we've got a government (whom I didn't vote for, BTW), I want desperately for it to work, because we will be destroyed as a country if we don't sort out the economy NOW.

The expenses stuff IS serious -- but it's not anywhere near as serious as the economic crisis, and I think the Telegraph (and all the other media outlets salivating over these stories) are being incredibly irresponsible.

Prolesworth · 30/05/2010 23:39

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

claig · 30/05/2010 23:36

I think the Telegraph is the paper of the establishment and doesn't just aim for sales. I think they have well thought out reasons for their exposes. It is fascinating that it was the establishment paper that exposed the original expenses scandal. It seems paradoxical that they would want to undermine parliament and democracy, but they must have a good reason for doing so.

Original poster
longfingernailspaintedblue · 30/05/2010 23:31

Remember, this is what Hazel Blears had to do when she avoided Capital Gains Tax

www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrL-alM5rKw

OP posts:
Original poster
longfingernailspaintedblue · 30/05/2010 23:30

beanlet

I distinctly remember Nick Clegg during the campaign saying none of his MPs had avoided CGT (like Hazel Blears).

Turns out that was a direct lie.

I want to coalition to succeed - and these infractions are less serious than those of so many Labour troughers - but the simple fact is that the Lib Dems have been less than honest, as a party, about their own expenses. It is coming back to bite them.

The Telegraph, as with every other media outlet (including the BBC) couldn't care less about the country. It cares about generating controversy and selling newspapers, and nothing else.

OP posts:
claig · 30/05/2010 23:29

They probably did, but when they saw that they were all knee deep in it, they probably decided that the best policy was to keep schtumm and use the old sleight of hand trick, pointing an accusatory finger at everyone else, hoping the media would then be too busy to look at them

beanlet · 30/05/2010 23:27

WTF is going on over at the Telegraph? Are they seriously trying to bring down the government at a time of the most acute economic crisis since the Great Depression?

Prolesworth · 30/05/2010 23:23

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

claig · 30/05/2010 23:07

Clegg will have to do some fast talking. He's an expert at that, the greater the pickle he is in, the faster he talks. The speech he makes on this one will probably be unintelligible, except to those who are fluent in Pinky and Perky talk.

Prolesworth · 30/05/2010 23:04

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn