Vince Cable lost the plot - VAT

Um for most the age will be 46 (and for some it will be later)

tim

Because the banks lent far too much money to property speculators (and the government then guarenteed that debt).

If Ireland didn't have 300,000 more houses, millions of square feet of (very expensive) office space and 1000s of 5 star hotel rooms than it needs, it would be doing very nicely now.

tim

There's a difference in making promises you think you'll never have to keep and then actually getting the job. Also he's not in power. He's following orders. But not allowed to say that.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

But he is. AIUI The coalition agreement specifically allows them to dissent on school fees (in much the same was as the Tories can campaign against PR after having voted to hold the referendum)

tim

Vince Cable had never grasped the plot in the first place. Given his extreme Socialist views, being very rich and having a privileged education as well, he was far better suited to remaining a Labour Party member, which he was until 1982.

When the *debt" is 35, not the adult worker. :)

Not quite correct IMHO.

Acquiring it if they don't yet have it is also their objective.

I think they are saying 'we won some, we lost some' eg compromise was needed.

Yes, confusion on my part, currently these debts are written off after 25 years, Browne recommended 30 years. Net result: many commentators point out that people with high fees/debt and low earning will have most debt written off.

I hadn't realised that - do you have some reference on his background to back it up please?

I thought he went through state education.

I must admit it is outrageous to have Socialist views - how dare he.

Given that so many so-called "Socialists" are total hypocrites when promoting the values of comprehensive education, which they never suffered under and neither do their children, it certainly is outrageous.

Which is precisely why the Liberals have settled for junior partnership of a ?whatever we can get given we are junior partners? coalition.

The Liberals were highly prepared for the eventuality of a coalition, as those negotiations showed, however they were not prepared for those negotiations to have to take place according to a, Tory only coalition in town, backdrop.

They had a hand, of sorts, but very little manoeuvre room in which to play it. I think most commentators are surprised at just how much they did get out of the Tories, especially Tory backbenchers.

They?ve done well considering a Labour coalition was unworkable and that in the end Labour didn?t want, at any price, if it meant Brown completely capitulating over PR.

The only other option was Tory minority government, with the Liberals abstaining, but that would have made them even more unpopular than they are now with no Tory compromise and the LibDems effectively just waving everything through.

As for another election, well only the Tories could have afforded that.

It's not only highly immoral but highly stupid to tax business, it?s for individuals to pay tax not business.

In any case, it?s usually only cynical and highly prejudiced Labour politicians that want to go there in an effort to tell the electorate what it wants to hear - that there is a big money tree out there ripe for plucking and it won?t cost you anything.

The Tories are committed to zero corporation taxes eventually, and rightly so, as they are highly damaging to business growth and development.

Labour chancellors tend to play a game over tax avoidance, basically they look the other way so they can indulge in playing to the idiotic prejudice, that all business is evil, so prevalent within their own party levying damaging business taxes, whilst leaving all the loopholes open so the consequences are minimised.

The trouble is, small business finds it hard to indulge in avoidance and ends up being clobbered but then deluded Labour only likes big business because shopkeepers, and the like, so rarely vote for them.

It is precisely the issue of PR that led to Labour pulling out of any potential coalition.

Despite Labour?s flirtation with PR for elections that don?t matter, when push comes to shove, you will find no greater resistance to PR than within the deep dark bowels of the highly dynastic Labour party.

This is why, on various highly dubious and spurious excuses, you can be sure Labour will oppose the proposed referendum and to campaign, fight tooth and nail, against it and hope to deliver their vote against any reform.

No party stands to lose more from electoral reform than Labour, most especially in their Scottish and Welsh heartlands.

Labour?s old heads, diehards and trade unionists realise this that is why they have been so appalled by the PC metro-sexual Hampstead Set?s (yes that?s you Milliband) flirtation with PR.

Labour tolerated Brown to the nth degree, almost certainly far too much so, but it was most interesting to observe that once he capitulated over PR to Clegg, in pursuit of power, the knives wasted no time, like never before, in coming in from all directions.

Why not when it's such safe ground for a starting position.

The Tories only agreed to a referendum because they knew deep down they could rely on Labour to oppose it, when push came to shove.

Ultimately, once downloads takeover completely, the trade in music is going to end up like online gambling where governments will be forced to look elsewhere for their dirty taxes.

All in all this is no bad thing.

The companies wouldn't be paying the extra VAT they would just be collecting it from their customers and passing it on. So I don't see how closing this loophole would affect businesses at all.

Downloads are subject to VAT, including e-books.

and your clarification on Cable's "privileged" background - or did you make that up?