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.

My problem is that I think tax is being wasted, or worse, encouraging State dependency, and that under the Labour, after the Tory spending plans were abandoned we went from balanced budgets to the present situation where we are borrowing eyewatering amounts every year.

The way to help the poor, long-term, is not to give them money.

I have many problems, but a feeling of inadequacy is not one of them.

longfingernails Wed 05-Jan-11 01:15:57
The way to help the poor, long-term, is not to give them money.

So how to help the poor then? Let them starve? The workhouse? ^see above^

I am sure you don't feel inadequate, but nevertheless, I get a sense of inadequacy from your posts. Crowing about the Govt. etc. with an undeniable sense of relish about cuts which I know you know will ultimately hurt the poorest in society.

What makes you better than people who have to claim benefits? All our lives turn on the Wheel of Fortune. Who would save you if it all went tits up tomorrow? Hun.

I want to get people off benefits.

The way to do that is to have a dynamic economy, with low taxes.

This continual attack on the motivations of Tory voters is really quite tiring. I want what is best for Britain as a whole, not just for me - and I believe that what is best for Britain is low taxes, cutting red tape for business, clearing our debts as quickly as possible, in freeing the tax-generating private sector by cutting the tax-consuming public sector, and injecting choice into as many aspects of the public services as possible.

LFN, you spout from a GCSE economics textbook. Your approach is so simplistic and well, childish.

"....... 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."

"Tobin tax or cancelling trident"

It looks like several posters on here should consider reading a GCSE Economics, or perhaps a maths, textbook.

Interesting that Alan Johnson didn't mention any of the above when asked on the Today programme, yesterday, how Labour would have cleared the structural defect by 2015 (as he initially claimed they they would).

Increasing employers NI contributions was Labour's key proposal, as I recall.

I heard that and yes, higher NI contributions were mentioned. But I thought I heard Alan Johnson agree in that interview that a VAT rise wasn't intriniscally wrong? He seemed more concerned about timing than anything else, and I understood his plan to be ' start reducing the deficit in 2015' rather than 'deficit cleared by 2015'. Wouldn't we be up to our necks in it if we waited 4 years before doing anything?

Labour are just riding populist opinion. Had they have been in power, they'd have raised VAT too. They don't even deny it. They are only claiming that they'd have delayed it. That's easy to do when you don't have to actually take responsibility.

Presumably they'd be just as aghast and blame the coalition if we lost our AAA rating and our interest rates rocketed?

Labour are just twisting words and hoping the public have short memories (which we generally do). They're now saying the cuts are idealogical and politically motivated. The inference being that they are unnecessary which is plainly wrong.

And as for reducing the deficit. Who do you have more faith in (and lend more money to)? The person who starts paying his debts back straight away? Or the one who talks about maybe starting to pay in 4 years time if his economic situation allows and providing it doesn't hurt too much?

LFN I think TPC has you sussed, you appear to be saying it is better the poor should suffer until the (never been seen before) Tory utopia arrives. In your world people should have freedom including the freedom to live in poverty and squalor as long as there are tax cuts for the better off.

How in your world do the poor have equality of opportunity with say "Daves" offspring ?

Tell me, what did the poor do to you that you despise them so much.

"This continual attack on the motivations of Tory voters is really quite tiring" It's not an attack as such just a recognition that MOST Tory voters are selfish by nature (note the most)

LFN. Hear, hear! 'people should be free to make their own choices' This is a what the labour party do not agree with! The labour party loved the big brother state, and would have had more state contol if they were not kicked out!

The planningcommitee. Just because LFN has different views from yours why is she inadequate? Just stick to the politics and try not to make it personal.

I've been poor. Very, very poor, and now I'm not. It is better to get people off benefits than to keep them dependant on them. Under labour 1 milllion were on benefits for over a decade. That's not right! Lower taxes for everyone encourages people to work, they can keep more of the money that they earn, instead of staying on benefits because it financially makes more sense than getting up every day at 7am!

Newwave. 'Most Tory votes are selfish by nature'. I'm not, well I did not vote for them last time! (useless on the EU). My husband and I both do voluntary work with the homeless, so how you can dismiss thousands of people is beyond me.
In the shires were many vote Tory, they do an incredible amount of work for charities.
It is pure nonsense to say that if a person votes in a certain way they are selfish.

I laughed when I heard Ed M's examples of instances where people would feel a painful increase in price as a result of the VAT rise: take-out coffees and children's DVDs.

What awful hardship for them. Imagine having to pay another 5p for your latte. What world does the man live in? Oh, hang on, Guardianista North London.

Here's my economic advice, Ed. Make your coffee at work. Join Lovefilm.

Comp, It is hard at times not to get personal with LFN. I get the impression of a callous person with no human empathy for those on the fringes of society, a person who would happily see the poor remain in need as long as the better off flourish.

On occassion she has stated the unemployed should "be made" to work but never says where the jobs are (and we will soon have less).

She is the opitime of Thatchers "there is no society"

Newwave. I send the above post in the spirit of 'enlightenment'.

Newwave. I think, many mis-understand LFN. I hope she does not mind me speaking up for her.
I can understnd where she is coming from. As I say I have been poor and now I'm not. A few in my family are still poor and do you know why, they are not old, but have not worked for over 15 years, and and they are very able bodied.

I feel in the future they will pay, as they shiver in their council flats, without a pot to piss in. I encourage the younger members of my family to study, work hard, get on etc;
This is what I think LFN means.
We should in a civilised society look after the poor and less able, but those who can work should. It is certainly not fair to take money from a disabled person in a home (cuts will be made to travelling expenses for them) and paying those who can work but decide not to. That's all I'm saying and feel she means the same. Hope I'm not wrong.Milliband, Clegg,Cameron, you could not put a fag paper between them. All have been brought up in elitist environments, and don't understand the vast majority of people IMO. They are all career (not conviction) politicians.

Newwave. For Thatcher to say "there is no society" is silly, if we did not have society only 'individuals' we would not help each other, and the result would be anarchy.

Ed Millibands example of how vat will hurt people, justifies me saying he's had an elitist upbringing! Yes the coffee prices will go up in the cafes of Primrose Hill! His old stomping ground!

hang on, it wasn't people on benefits who came within a gnat's crotchet of destroying the world economy. It was wealthy bankers and their mates. All this focus on claimants is just a distraction from the real issue - especially when we are in the middle of a recession that inevitably throws millions more onto the scrap heap.

We do need to encourage economic growth to create the jobs these people need. Instead the coalition has chosen to make public spending cuts that they know will lead to even more job losses in the public, private and voluntary sectors. (Many private sector jobs are linked to public sector work, either directly as suppliers or indirectly.)

"She is the opitime of Thatchers "there is no society"

I know it was meant to be a throaway jibe on your part but everyone takes that Thatcher quote out of context and it's a pity. 'Society' was a catchall word, often blamed at the time for personal failings & misfortunes.... things like 'It's not my fault, it's society that's made me this way'. So if you read the full wording in that context it makes a lot more sense and is far from being shorthand for heartless.

"There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate."

yeah, and she made damn sure there were plenty of unfortunate people - more than 3m on the dole queue, IIRC. Quite deliberate economic policies creating mass unemployment to a. smash the unions and b. take the economy away from manufacturing and primary industries and towards the service sector. And we can see where that legacy has left us... if governments since the 80s had seen a balanced economy as a priority, investing in manufacturing like our continental neighbours, we wouldn't have become so dependent on the City and we might have avoided the horrible, devastating mistakes that brought our economy and society to the brink of collapse.

Chili. Never read the full script. Now that makes much more sense.

"if governments since the 80s had seen a balanced economy as a priority, investing in manufacturing like our continental neighbours, we wouldn't have become so dependent on the City and we might have avoided the horrible, devastating mistakes that brought our economy and society to the brink of collapse."

Edam I agree - But Labour did have 13 years to change this and instead they chose to 'paper over the cracks' with the tax surpluses generated by the city and the rest of the booming service economy.

And the speed with which the Coalition is unravelling the Blair/Brown legacy is telling. Initiatives such as BSF and (to some extent) EMA were so badly managed and implemented that it weakened the arguments to keep them.