Newsnight: Ed Miliband argued twice for a VAT rise in Cabinet

[longfingernails]

Peter Mandelson has spilled the beans!

Oh deary deary me, Mr Miliband, oh deary deary me.

"Dave" said he would retain CB as a universal benefit and EMA. Clegg lied about tuition fees and said he would vote against a VAT increase.

The above are provable lies, Mandy needs to provide proof or it is all gossip.

Not as dreary as you, LFN x

Oops sorry misread "deary" as "dreary". Serendipitous, some might say.

x

It doesn't surprise me, the Government had to put up either VAT or NI

It doesn't surprise me, the Government had to put up either VAT or NI.

No it did not it could have introduced a land tax on estates of over a certain value or increased the 50p tax band to 60p, taxed the banks and bankers bonuses more.

Lots of options that did not hurt the poor and vulnerable the most but that would hardly fit in with Tory ideology.

Maybe NI could have been increased but only for those on over £60K a year.

Not the only choices huddspur - what about a Tobin tax, or cancelling Trident?

I don't see why we still have National Insurance. Scrap it, fold it into income tax, and if it causes problems for pensioners, have a special pensioner income tax rate.

No - I got bored of Newsnight and came online. What was the correction?

If it is a denial, then I don't believe it, unless it is a denial from Peter Mandelson.

I know Peter Mandelson is a weasel, but why would he lie about it?

No - I remember that the "are you sitting comfortably" adverts actually put me off my dinner:

longfingernails Wed 05-Jan-11 00:10:03
I know Peter Mandelson is a weasel, but why would he lie about it?

LFN, for someone who likes to assume a woman-of-the-world political swagger, you are being staggeringly naive. With all due respect. x

Blair, Mandelson and a lot of the other Blairites are broadly in favour of what the coalition are doing

Precisely, huddspur. Don't confuse New Labour with left-wing principles.

Tony Blair and his acolytes actually more or less invented the blueprint for Academies. Free Schools, for Foundation Hospitals, privatisation of the Royal Mail, and all sorts of other very admirable public sector reform.

They were held back by Brown.

Ah, LFN, I would love to know where your hatred of the public sector and poor people comes from. Your mind is utterly alien to me.

Might you care to share the thinking behind your posts and your fundamental ideology?

Because I really do struggle to understand how a fellow human can take so much delight in the state-led infliction of poverty on vulnerable people. Which is the unavoidable outcome of this Govt's policies.

Go on - you show me yours, and I'll show you mine hun x

The infliction of poverty is Labour's fault, not the Tories. If Labour spent less and ran surpluses instead of deficits, there would be no problem. Borrowing has to be paid for - it's as simple as that. If Labour didn't go on a borrowing binge, we wouldn't be in this mess.

In general, I see a large State as stifling the productive capacity of the economy.

I tend to view most, though not all, government cuts as freeing people from the oppresive yoke of State dependency.

I want low taxes and low public spending, because I believe that individuals and families should decide how to spend what they earn.

I believe in equality of opportunity, not outcome. I don't believe that relative poverty is of any consequence whatsoever - although I support a minimal welfare state to help those in absolute poverty.

I believe that the idea size of the public sector as a proportion of GDP is about 30%. At the moment, it is more like 50%.

One word: infrastructure?

You are living in some dystopian UKIP-land. The naive concept you cite of "government cuts freeing people from the oppressive yoke of State dependency" can result in nothing other than a return to the workhouse. I am agog that you can't understand cause and effect

Yes, one of the main legitimate functions of the State is to enable the provision of infrastructure (sometimes, but not always, by providing it).

Infrastructure can easily fit within a 30% of GDP limit.

Socialists believe they know better than the population at large. In their ideal world, nobody would be better than anyone else at anything.

Conservatives believe that largely, people should be free to make their own choices.

Surely the point is that in an unequal society, some people never get to make choices?

And equally, in a Conservative society, surely the choices one makes are only to benefit oneself?

I am sensing a deep, long-held, sense of inadequacy in you LFN - why are you so threatened by poor people, and the fact that some of the tax you pay goes towards making day-to-day life a bit less of a struggle for others who are less fortunate that you?