Congratulations John Macdonnell, you have taken a story about tax cuts for the rich by the Government and made it all about splits and lack of principle by the opposition:
Carter's quite right. Given all that's going on on Georgia at the moment, it would be much better to have a third party in charge of arrangements. That is not to say Kemp would rig the ballot, merely that if it's a narrow win he's leaving himself open to accusations of having done so.
He’s already had a few goes at rigging the ballot in advance of the vote, of course.
Now imagine that these numbers were reversed with consumer spending up 3% in France and down 1.5% in the UK.
Would the consequent apocalyptic reporting be blaming Brexit or austerity or both ?
you could say that the British are having more fun.
The British having more fun than the French? That really would be an inversion of national stereotypes!
Perhaps French fun is better value.
You can certainly buy better wine for less. Shame about the beer and spirits! You would have thought that they would have spent a lot after the World Cup win - when I was there in August there were large number of France Football shirts being worn
Carter's quite right. Given all that's going on on Georgia at the moment, it would be much better to have a third party in charge of arrangements. That is not to say Kemp would rig the ballot, merely that if it's a narrow win he's leaving himself open to accusations of having done so.
He’s already had a few goes at rigging the ballot in advance of the vote, of course.
That's why he's left himself open to the accusations in question.
Congratulations John Macdonnell, you have taken a story about tax cuts for the rich by the Government and made it all about splits and lack of principle by the opposition:
I guess he is trying to maintain the Labour pledge of "we won't raise your taxes unless you earn enough to be in the top 5%". Perhaps it's a smart move, but I'm unconvinced.
Congratulations John Macdonnell, you have taken a story about tax cuts for the rich by the Government and made it all about splits and lack of principle by the opposition:
I guess he is trying to maintain the Labour pledge of "we won't raise your taxes unless you earn enough to be in the top 5%". Perhaps it's a smart move, but I'm unconvinced.
He could have just said nothing about taxes and focussed his fire on schools and UC, where the budget was weak.
Now the narrative is Labour splits and the Shadow Chancellor backs tax cuts.
... I suspect that Labour would gain in electoral terms from promising a Higher rate of 60% on people earning £500,000 per annum rising to 75% on those earning £1,500,000 pa.
In electoral terms, possibly. But those are true marginal rates (including employee's and employer's NI, which of course have to be included in determining the effect on behaviour) of 75.8% and 90.8% respectively.
One can argue about the exact contour of the income tax Laffer curve, but you can bet you bottom dollar that a 90.8% tax rate is far off to the right of the scale where extra revenues drop towards 0.
But a 60% rate is the same as accepted by Thatcher until 1988 - and even the 75% rate would be well below the levels seen in the 1970s under both Tory and Labour governments.
We now have the 1% paying 27% of all income tax. What was that proportion under previous Labour Govts.?
Does that include NI, which is of course effectively an income tax (albeit not applied uniformly to all scources of income)?
I thought the National Socialists were Socialists - and thus of the left.
This is what annoys me about people like Paul Mason. He conflates everything into them and us. Tony Blair did not want to rid the world of rich people. And he was of the left. And I'm not sure it could be just an elite electing him.
I thought the National Socialists were Socialists - and thus of the left.
The standard response is that there are no shepherd's in shepherd's pie, the Nazi party started in a period where Germany was becoming more left wing and was named to deceive socialists to support them. It is almost as if the LibDems under Nick Clegg were either Liberal or Social Democratic.
I thought the National Socialists were Socialists - and thus of the left.
The standard response is that there are no shepherd's in shepherd's pie, the Nazi party started in a period where Germany was becoming more left wing and was named to deceive socialists to support them. It is almost as if the LibDems under Nick Clegg were either Liberal or Social Democratic.
Then the standard response is wrong. It started out as a Socialist party under Drexler, but when Hitler took over he rapidly changed its direction while keeping the name (National Sozialist Deutsches Arbeiter Partei).
Comments
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/99482/labour-row-erupts-after-john-mcdonnell-backs
Now the narrative is Labour splits and the Shadow Chancellor backs tax cuts.
Very foolish and wholly unnecessary.
Tartare for now.