Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> When you say he doesn't like private equity, how

> do you mean?


He appeared to propose a different tax scale for PE and referred to them as asset strippers. Its a bit of a backward step to the union rhetoric of 4 or 5 years ago when PE was making big profits.

Christ, my own business is totally reliant on private equity in the form of business angels.


They've got plenty of other options for their cash, and SME is very high risk, so anything that dissuaded them from investing in small business start ups, early stage funding, the rounds and pre IPO would be absolutely insane.


You'd kill small business.


I can see an argument to dissuade those that target existing mature businesses from asset stripping, but Milliband would need to be very careful in how he couches any legislation.

So what do we all think of the proposal to raise the speed limit to 80?


I was quite surprised as I'd forgotten that occasionally something sensible and positive can come out of a politician. I guess occasionally policy brainstorming does deliver the goods...


Presumably it is now only a matter of time before Ed suggests that it needs to be raised to the right level and not the wrong level. That the Torys are wrong, wrong, wrong and are going too far too fast. And that we should all get on board his plan to raise the limit to 78mph.

Senor Chevalier Wrote:

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


> Presumably it is now only a matter of time before Ed suggests that it needs to be raised to the

> right level and not the wrong level. That the Torys are wrong, wrong, wrong and are going too

> far too fast. And that we should all get on board his plan to raise the limit to 78mph.


Quality satire, SC. :))

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Had council stock not been sold off then it wouldn't have needed replacing. Whilst I agree that the prohibition on spending revenue from sales on new council housing was a contributory factor, where, in places where building land is scarce and expensive such as London, would these replacement homes have been built. Don't mention infill land! The whole right to buy issue made me so angry when it was introduced and I'm still fuming 40 odd years later. If I could see it was just creating problems for the future, how come Thatcher didn't. I suspect though she did, was more interested in buying votes, and just didn't care about a scarcity of housing impacting the next generations.
    • Actually I don't think so. What caused the problem was the ban on councils using the revenues from sales to build more houses. Had councils been able to reinvest in more housing then we would have had a boom in building. And councils would have been relieved, through the sales, of the cost of maintaining old housing stock. Thatcher believed that council tenants didn't vote Conservative, and home owners did. Which may have been, at the time a correct assumption. But it was the ban on councils building more from the sales revenues which was the real killer here. Not the sales themselves. 
    • I agree with Jenjenjen. Guarantees are provided for works and services actually carried out; they are not an insurance policy for leaks anywhere else on the roof. Assuming that the rendering at the chimney stopped the leak that you asked the roofer to repair, then the guarantee will cover that rendering work. Indeed, if at some time in the future it leaked again at that exact same spot but by another cause, that would not be covered. Failure of rendering around a chimney is pretty common so, if re-rendering did resolve that leak, there is no particular reason to link it to the holes in the felt elsewhere across the roof. 
    • Hey, I am on the first floor and I am directly impacted if roof leaks. We got a roofing company to do repair work which was supposed to be guaranteed. However, when it started leaking again, we were informed that the guarantee is just for a new roof and not repair work. Each time the company that did the repair work came out again over the next few years, we had to pay additional amounts. The roof continues to leak, so I have just organised another company to fix the roof instead, as the guarantee doesn't mean anything. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...