politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour’s hoping that taking on the non doms could be a narr
Options
Comments
-
@MrHarryCole: There is nothing edited about the line: "It will cost the country money"Morris_Dancer said:Balls claims the Tories edited his interview:
0 -
Sorry - but the 'full' quote gives exactly the same impression as the 'partial' quote.SouthamObserver said:
We'll see. Everyone now knows that the Tories released a partial quote designed to give a false impression of the views Balls expressed in January.TOPPING said:
sorry SO it's all about how it plays. Stop arguing with the ref. It was a great policy announcement for Lab and it is now a great story for the Cons.SouthamObserver said:
Can you explain how a policy that does not affect 60% of those with non-dom status contradicts anything that Ed Balls said in January?TCPoliticalBetting said:
It is just bizarre watching it unroll. It is a piece of 1984 speak. Labour re-writing what they believe within a few weeks of saying it. If the media cannot nail Labour over this, then we probably know that Labour are untouchable.MikeSmithson said:
And the media are running with the gaffe story.
The Labour press team should have seen this coming. And they failed.0 -
Mr Dancer,Morris_Dancer said:Balls claims the Tories edited his interview:
https://twitter.com/edballsmp/status/585754970047258625
They did! Read the full transcript of the interview please...0 -
@MrHarryCole: Sky and BBC running the entire clip. Yet Ed Balls screaming "edited". Weak.0
-
Balls is going to have a tremendously easy time reconciling his non dom view in interviews with Miliband's policy.
Releasing partial quotes won't win this election for the Conservatives, this is full on damage limitation till they can get their big gun of the election out which I suspect will be IHT reduction on primary residence/threshold to £1 Mill or some such.0 -
Mr. Sandpit, aye, Spa does look good.
Get married in the off-season
Mr. Observer, really?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9JTMO0DZiM0 -
I had a fun trip yesterday as I had to pick up young Brooke from Gatwick at 18.00. My brother is with me so we decided to do a road trip.HurstLlama said:
Morning Mr. Brooke,Alanbrooke said:
I drove through prime Llamaland yesterday on my way to Gatwick - even Midhurst. Lovely day for the Downs and not much evidence of elections.HurstLlama said:@Morris_Dancer
"If I were writing the fifth, the first thing I'd do would be to have Shia LaBoeuf killed off)."
Be fair, Mr. D., your second writing speciality is killing off characters, usually in inventive ways.
I have come to the conclusion that the people of the nice bits of Sussex have decided that elections are vulgar. Like lavatories and rat-catchers something that has to be there but one doesn't want to talk about in public, let alone make a fuss about.
I do like Midhurst and the surrounding areas - beautiful countryside and some prime pubs and eateries. Next to bugger all public transport though (thanks to that ass Beeching) so The Temperance Association doesn't do outings there as often as the place deserves.
Stopped at Burford Oxon first and saw about two posters for Cameron just outside Witney otherwise nothing. Winchester was the same not much evidence of activity and across the Downs to Gatwick except for some chap named Holingbery who'd splashed out on roadside posters.
It was the same on my trip from Warks to pembroke last Saturday. next to nothing the whole way.0 -
A tax QC understands the tax law of this country but would rely upon an international tax expert to model the comparisons of the various options.Scott_P said:@MrHarryCole: The indy expert Miliband cited is a Labour member and admits he borked the numbers: http://t.co/vX0w5kL5fP
0 -
We are doing OK, thanks, Mr. J. I don't post as much because there aren't as many conversations that I want to join as there used to be (a tad too much "Yah-boo, my tribe is always right"). I still stick my head in most days and am fascinated by how you are getting on as a stay at home Dad.JosiasJessop said:
Ah, okay. :-)HurstLlama said:
Ummm. I was actually trying to gently poke fun at Mr Observer and his frequent quotes of an OECD (as opposed to OCED) report on eduction.JosiasJessop said:
Morning, mr Llama.HurstLlama said:
Morning Mr. Jessup,JosiasJessop said:Do any Labour-leaning posters have any comments to make over the success of the government's troubled families scheme?
Or are they more interested in hatred of the rich (excepting 'their' rich) than helping the less fortunate?
There is an OCED report which suggests that families helped through the scheme fair no better than those that aren't. Therefore, one can conclude that the scheme is a waste of time and resources, worse it actively encourages some families to change their lifestyle.
Oh, I haven't seen that report, and if so it may change my mind on something I'm extremely passionate about. Do you have a link?
I apologise.
Hope all is well with you & yours. Sadly you don't seem to be posting as much as you used to.0 -
Wishful thinking.Pulpstar said:Balls is going to have a tremendously easy time reconciling his non dom view in interviews with Miliband's policy.
Releasing partial quotes won't win this election for the Conservatives, this is full on damage limitation till they can get their big gun of the election out which I suspect will be IHT reduction on primary residence/threshold to £1 Mill or some such.
The full quote takes nothing away from Balls's assertion that the removal of the non-dom rules will cost the country money.
He knew that back in January. He knows it now.
Complaining about the nasty Tories (and the BBC and everyone else) not presenting it properly isn't going to cut it.0 -
@GdnPolitics: Ed Balls in January: scrapping non-dom status would cost money – video http://t.co/uAuWKBMEkF0
-
Can someone just check me on this.
A non-Dom gets taxed on UK income but not on income earned outside the UK - where he presumably pays local taxes. Correct?
They have to pay £30,000 or so for this privilege? Correct?
So abolishing this status would mean all income everywhere would be taxed at UK rates - presumably 50% or higher if Ed gets into power. (I assume only the difference between tax paid elsewhere and total tax due would be paid).
And people aren't surprised that non-doms would leave.0 -
You clearly have not read the full quote.oxfordsimon said:
Sorry - but the 'full' quote gives exactly the same impression as the 'partial' quote.SouthamObserver said:
We'll see. Everyone now knows that the Tories released a partial quote designed to give a false impression of the views Balls expressed in January.TOPPING said:
sorry SO it's all about how it plays. Stop arguing with the ref. It was a great policy announcement for Lab and it is now a great story for the Cons.SouthamObserver said:
Can you explain how a policy that does not affect 60% of those with non-dom status contradicts anything that Ed Balls said in January?TCPoliticalBetting said:
It is just bizarre watching it unroll. It is a piece of 1984 speak. Labour re-writing what they believe within a few weeks of saying it. If the media cannot nail Labour over this, then we probably know that Labour are untouchable.MikeSmithson said:
And the media are running with the gaffe story.
The Labour press team should have seen this coming. And they failed.
0 -
You clearly have not read the full quote.oxfordsimon said:
Sorry - but the 'full' quote gives exactly the same impression as the 'partial' quote.SouthamObserver said:
We'll see. Everyone now knows that the Tories released a partial quote designed to give a false impression of the views Balls expressed in January.TOPPING said:
sorry SO it's all about how it plays. Stop arguing with the ref. It was a great policy announcement for Lab and it is now a great story for the Cons.SouthamObserver said:
Can you explain how a policy that does not affect 60% of those with non-dom status contradicts anything that Ed Balls said in January?TCPoliticalBetting said:
It is just bizarre watching it unroll. It is a piece of 1984 speak. Labour re-writing what they believe within a few weeks of saying it. If the media cannot nail Labour over this, then we probably know that Labour are untouchable.MikeSmithson said:
And the media are running with the gaffe story.
The Labour press team should have seen this coming. And they failed.
0 -
"The first big policy development of the campaign" - has run into a spot of difficulty. #Ballsup0
-
#nondomnishamballs0
-
What one Labour tax advisor says about himself.
"Jolyon has a predominantly litigation based practice in the fields of direct and indirect tax. He has particular expertise in avoidance, structured finance, intangible property, tax and judicial review, and employment taxation."
http://www.devereuxchambers.co.uk/barrister/55/jolyon_maugham0 -
Oh but I have.SouthamObserver said:
You clearly have not read the full quote.oxfordsimon said:
Sorry - but the 'full' quote gives exactly the same impression as the 'partial' quote.SouthamObserver said:
We'll see. Everyone now knows that the Tories released a partial quote designed to give a false impression of the views Balls expressed in January.TOPPING said:
sorry SO it's all about how it plays. Stop arguing with the ref. It was a great policy announcement for Lab and it is now a great story for the Cons.SouthamObserver said:
Can you explain how a policy that does not affect 60% of those with non-dom status contradicts anything that Ed Balls said in January?TCPoliticalBetting said:
It is just bizarre watching it unroll. It is a piece of 1984 speak. Labour re-writing what they believe within a few weeks of saying it. If the media cannot nail Labour over this, then we probably know that Labour are untouchable.MikeSmithson said:
And the media are running with the gaffe story.
The Labour press team should have seen this coming. And they failed.
And NOTHING in it takes away from Balls's saying that the abolishing of the Non-doms rule would COST THE COUNTRY MONEY
NOTHING!0 -
Pretty much yes. Double Tax treaties usually state that the difference between UK and whereever tax is payable (if the wherever tax is lower).weejonnie said:Can someone just check me on this.
A non-Dom gets taxed on UK income but not on income earned outside the UK - where he presumably pays local taxes. Correct?
They have to pay £30,000 or so for this privilege? Correct?
So abolishing this status would mean all income everywhere would be taxed at UK rates - presumably 50% or higher if Ed gets into power. (I assume only the difference between tax paid elsewhere and total tax due would be paid).
And people aren't surprised that non-doms would leave.
0 -
I wonder how the Tories managed to edit a BBC interview...don't think so..makes Balls look an even bigger wally0
-
I'm not the one doing the wishful thinking here... - The Daily Mail has buried it to story No 44 on the website and the comments are on Labour's side !oxfordsimon said:
Wishful thinking.Pulpstar said:Balls is going to have a tremendously easy time reconciling his non dom view in interviews with Miliband's policy.
Releasing partial quotes won't win this election for the Conservatives, this is full on damage limitation till they can get their big gun of the election out which I suspect will be IHT reduction on primary residence/threshold to £1 Mill or some such.
The full quote takes nothing away from Balls's assertion that the removal of the non-dom rules will cost the country money.
He knew that back in January. He knows it now.
Complaining about the nasty Tories (and the BBC and everyone else) not presenting it properly isn't going to cut it.0 -
What Balls said
"I think that it is important that you make sure the non-dom rules work in a fair way. I think they were too lax in the past. Both the last Labour government and this Conservative government have tightened them up. That is something I will continue to look at. I think if you abolish the whole status then probably it ends up costing Britain money because there will be some people who will then leave the country.
But Balls also added at the end:
But I think we can be tougher and we should be and we will."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/apr/08/election-2015-live-blog-labour-ed-miliband-non-dom-tax-loophole#block-55250014e4b08caf50c1ee39
Hardly the smoking gun.
0 -
BBC News still leading with Ballsup0
-
The tories were tougher on non domsMikeSmithson said:What Balls said
"I think that it is important that you make sure the non-dom rules work in a fair way. I think they were too lax in the past. Both the last Labour government and this Conservative government have tightened them up. That is something I will continue to look at. I think if you abolish the whole status then probably it ends up costing Britain money because there will be some people who will then leave the country.
But Balls also added at the end:
But I think we can be tougher and we should be and we will."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/apr/08/election-2015-live-blog-labour-ed-miliband-non-dom-tax-loophole#block-55250014e4b08caf50c1ee39
Hardly the smoking gun.
He said"if you abolish the whole status then probably it ends up costing Britain money "
Is that not Labours policy now?0 -
Absolutely. There is the full quote. And there is still a huge gap between what Balls said then and what he and Miliband are saying today.MikeSmithson said:What Balls said
"I think that it is important that you make sure the non-dom rules work in a fair way. I think they were too lax in the past. Both the last Labour government and this Conservative government have tightened them up. That is something I will continue to look at. I think if you abolish the whole status then probably it ends up costing Britain money because there will be some people who will then leave the country.
But Balls also added at the end:
But I think we can be tougher and we should be and we will."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/apr/08/election-2015-live-blog-labour-ed-miliband-non-dom-tax-loophole#block-55250014e4b08caf50c1ee39
Hardly the smoking gun.
It is a split. A gaffe. A Balls-up.0 -
Always such a weak argument; any quotation is by definition taken out of context. Balls said: "it will end up costing the country money". Unless the next two words were "April Fool!", that's what he said.SouthamObserver said:
You clearly have not read the full quote.oxfordsimon said:
Sorry - but the 'full' quote gives exactly the same impression as the 'partial' quote.SouthamObserver said:
We'll see. Everyone now knows that the Tories released a partial quote designed to give a false impression of the views Balls expressed in January.TOPPING said:
sorry SO it's all about how it plays. Stop arguing with the ref. It was a great policy announcement for Lab and it is now a great story for the Cons.SouthamObserver said:
Can you explain how a policy that does not affect 60% of those with non-dom status contradicts anything that Ed Balls said in January?TCPoliticalBetting said:
It is just bizarre watching it unroll. It is a piece of 1984 speak. Labour re-writing what they believe within a few weeks of saying it. If the media cannot nail Labour over this, then we probably know that Labour are untouchable.MikeSmithson said:
And the media are running with the gaffe story.
The Labour press team should have seen this coming. And they failed.0 -
That sounds about right.weejonnie said:Can someone just check me on this.
A non-Dom gets taxed on UK income but not on income earned outside the UK - where he presumably pays local taxes. Correct?
They have to pay £30,000 or so for this privilege? Correct?
So abolishing this status would mean all income everywhere would be taxed at UK rates - presumably 50% or higher if Ed gets into power. (I assume only the difference between tax paid elsewhere and total tax due would be paid).
And people aren't surprised that non-doms would leave.
I'm not a lawyer!
0 -
Afternoon all
The whole "non-dom" status is incredibly complex. Yet it seems to be being portrayed by both sides in amazingly simplistic terms.
I note this regime doesn't exist in such economic basket cases as the USA and Germany so there's a question there about whether it has much value any more. The rules themselves seem contradictory and unclear and as with most systems you can only play it well if you understand it properly.
So it's back to perception and this is Ed Miliband's central point - it's a system which appears to favour wealthy people and if you're going to play the envy card, that's all you need. It plays to the British sense of fairness - it appears to be one set of rules for one group of people and one set for everyone else. I found this guide of some value:
http://primeglobal.net/sites/default/files/HURSTNonDomStatus7_23_12.pdf
I doubt there are "hundreds of millions" involved one way or the other and it does neither Balls nor Osborne any credit to overegg the pudding.0 -
Apparently Labour are now spinning that Ed did not announce abolishing the non-dom rules...0
-
When the Conservative IHT plan comes out and Labour says that it shows up the Tories as the party of the rich - that will be a good day for the Conservatives.
I'm firmly of the belief that making the news rather than reacting to it is of the utmost importance, the general public aren't going to get into the minutiae of what Balls said or did two months ago, the news today is about Labour taxing Non Doms.
Labour will have bad days in the campaign, this is not one of them.
Opposition debate viewing figures will be interesting - when is that particular gig ?0 -
Indeed. I guess that is why the status is not going to be completely abolished under the plans announced today.oxfordsimon said:
Oh but I have.SouthamObserver said:
You clearly have not read the full quote.oxfordsimon said:
Sorry - but the 'full' quote gives exactly the same impression as the 'partial' quote.SouthamObserver said:
We'll see. Everyone now knows that the Tories released a partial quote designed to give a false impression of the views Balls expressed in January.TOPPING said:
sorry SO it's all about how it plays. Stop arguing with the ref. It was a great policy announcement for Lab and it is now a great story for the Cons.SouthamObserver said:
Can you explain how a policy that does not affect 60% of those with non-dom status contradicts anything that Ed Balls said in January?TCPoliticalBetting said:
It is just bizarre watching it unroll. It is a piece of 1984 speak. Labour re-writing what they believe within a few weeks of saying it. If the media cannot nail Labour over this, then we probably know that Labour are untouchable.MikeSmithson said:
And the media are running with the gaffe story.
The Labour press team should have seen this coming. And they failed.
And NOTHING in it takes away from Balls's saying that the abolishing of the Non-doms rule would COST THE COUNTRY MONEY
NOTHING!
0 -
If EdM didn't want to cause a rumpus - he shouldn't have used language like "abolish" in his policy announcement. And in his speech.
What Balls said was perfectly fine, it was EdM sexing the whole thing into a headline grabber that backfired so spectacularly.
It was sloppy and invited this whole clusterfuck.currystar said:
The tories were tougher on non domsMikeSmithson said:What Balls said
"I think that it is important that you make sure the non-dom rules work in a fair way. I think they were too lax in the past. Both the last Labour government and this Conservative government have tightened them up. That is something I will continue to look at. I think if you abolish the whole status then probably it ends up costing Britain money because there will be some people who will then leave the country.
But Balls also added at the end:
But I think we can be tougher and we should be and we will."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/apr/08/election-2015-live-blog-labour-ed-miliband-non-dom-tax-loophole#block-55250014e4b08caf50c1ee39
Hardly the smoking gun.
He said"if you abolish the whole status then probably it ends up costing Britain money "
Is that not Labours policy now?0 -
@FraserNelson: Here is the original #Ballsup BBC interview that he falsely claims the Tories edited. His non-com thoughts 6'30 in. https://t.co/FRLV6apEa20
-
New Thread0
-
@SunNation: #SunNation can reveal Labour has accepted nearly £12MILLION from wealthy non-dom donors: http://t.co/65QVxB3JGe http://t.co/5XixJzqFr50
-
It could still be a gain for Labour. You can't beat "it's not fair" as a political slogan, even if it's a twelve year old's mantra.
Ed is only worried about getting into power - as most politicians are. He's fanatical about that because he knows he's right and everyone else is wrong. If the economy tanks, it will be the fault of that Farmer Jones again.0 -
Thanks, and I'm glad all is well with you.HurstLlama said:
We are doing OK, thanks, Mr. J. I don't post as much because there aren't as many conversations that I want to join as there used to be (a tad too much "Yah-boo, my tribe is always right"). I still stick my head in most days and am fascinated by how you are getting on as a stay at home Dad.JosiasJessop said:
Ah, okay. :-)HurstLlama said:
Ummm. I was actually trying to gently poke fun at Mr Observer and his frequent quotes of an OECD (as opposed to OCED) report on eduction.JosiasJessop said:
Morning, mr Llama.HurstLlama said:
Morning Mr. Jessup,JosiasJessop said:Do any Labour-leaning posters have any comments to make over the success of the government's troubled families scheme?
Or are they more interested in hatred of the rich (excepting 'their' rich) than helping the less fortunate?
There is an OCED report which suggests that families helped through the scheme fair no better than those that aren't. Therefore, one can conclude that the scheme is a waste of time and resources, worse it actively encourages some families to change their lifestyle.
Oh, I haven't seen that report, and if so it may change my mind on something I'm extremely passionate about. Do you have a link?
I apologise.
Hope all is well with you & yours. Sadly you don't seem to be posting as much as you used to.
(Wonders if Mrs J is reading).
Being a stay-at-home dad is, of course, terribly hard. (*) All the dirty nappies, the screaming, the unexplainable and incoherent tantrums.
It's good preparation for reading PB!
(*) In reality it is really great fun, and the best thing I've ever done. Every man should do it, and send their wives off to work. Feminists could hardly complain. ;-)0 -
'The mother and father of all banana skins' - John Pienaar, Radio 5.0
-
The Tory line early this morning was that Labour weren't abolishing the non-dom rule, they were just tinkering around the edges.
Now the Tory line is that Ed Balls said in January that abolishing the non-dom rule would cost money, so obviously he disagrees with his leader who, er, is not abolishing the non-dom rule, but just tinkering around the edges. No disagreement then?
Desperate partisan spinning. The video of Ed Balls is like manna from heaven for the media, though, and they are having a gay old time pointing and laughing.0 -
A thought on the politics of this.
Five years ago Gordon Brown couldn't make a speech on any subject without referring to "Lord Ashcroft the non-dom who bankrolls the Tories" - if there was any revenue to be made from scrapping the status then surely Brown would have taken the political advantage before the last election?0 -
= lost in translation.SouthamObserver said:
We'll see. Everyone now knows that the Tories released a partial quote designed to give a false impression of the views Balls expressed in January.TOPPING said:
sorry SO it's all about how it plays. Stop arguing with the ref. It was a great policy announcement for Lab and it is now a great story for the Cons.SouthamObserver said:
Can you explain how a policy that does not affect 60% of those with non-dom status contradicts anything that Ed Balls said in January?TCPoliticalBetting said:
It is just bizarre watching it unroll. It is a piece of 1984 speak. Labour re-writing what they believe within a few weeks of saying it. If the media cannot nail Labour over this, then we probably know that Labour are untouchable.MikeSmithson said:
Everyone knows that Lab's bombshell policy is in disarray and, worse, especially if it is true, there may be some Lab infighting the likes of which we thought we had seen the end of with the demise of Blair then Brown.0 -
Nothing has changed, the policy is following through what Balls said.BenM said:
Keep trying to peddle your line. It isn't working. But do keep peddling.oxfordsimon said:
More Guido nonsense. Read the transacript.BenM said:
Ben, Ben, Ben, Ben, Ben.oxfordsimon said:BenM said:A howitzer downs the desperate Tory non dom attack:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/apr/08/election-2015-live-blog-labour-ed-miliband-non-dom-tax-loophole#block-55250014e4b08caf50c1ee39As the Tories said, Balls said this:
I think that it is important that you make sure the non-dom rules work in a fair way. I think they were too lax in the past. Both the last Labour government and this Conservative government have tightened them up. That is something I will continue to look at. I think if you abolish the whole status then probably it ends up costing Britain money because there will be some people who will then leave the country.
But Balls also added at the end:
But I think we can be tougher and we should be and we will.
You just don't get it. Actually, you don't want to get it.
Labour has massively screwed this up.
Eddie B is on the record opposing scrapping the Non-Dom rules - plain and simple.
Eddie M has just launched a new policy saying he wants to scrap them.
The two most 'important' figures in the Labour party aren't talking to one another.
It is a classic split. A gaffe. A complete balls-up
And with regards to being tougher - didn't you notice that the Non-Dom rules got tougher in the Budget last month?
Oh Ben.
Balls states that Labour will toughen up the rules no matter what the cost.
The Tory attack has petered out.
Now, will you Tories do what most of the commentariat is suggesting and bow to the nevitable over non doms?
A competitive tax system is necessary for a thriving economy. Driving wealth creators out is absolutely not.
Balls knew that back in January.
What has changed?
Nothing has changed as far as Tories are concerned. Still defending their rich non domiciled chums.
The voters are watching.
Desperate stuff Ben. Hilarious. But desperate.
"pwned" as they used to say on Usenet.
0 -
Desperate stuff Ben. Hilarious. But desperate.Bond_James_Bond said:
Nothing has changed, the policy is following through what Balls said.BenM said:
Keep trying to peddle your line. It isn't working. But do keep peddling.oxfordsimon said:
More Guido nonsense. Read the transacript.BenM said:
Ben, Ben, Ben, Ben, Ben.oxfordsimon said:BenM said:A howitzer downs the desperate Tory non dom attack:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/apr/08/election-2015-live-blog-labour-ed-miliband-non-dom-tax-loophole#block-55250014e4b08caf50c1ee39As the Tories said, Balls said this:
I think that it is important that you make sure the non-dom rules work in a fair way. I think they were too lax in the past. Both the last Labour government and this Conservative government have tightened them up. That is something I will continue to look at. I think if you abolish the whole status then probably it ends up costing Britain money because there will be some people who will then leave the country.
But Balls also added at the end:
But I think we can be tougher and we should be and we will.
You just don't get it. Actually, you don't want to get it.
Labour has massively screwed this up.
Eddie B is on the record opposing scrapping the Non-Dom rules - plain and simple.
Eddie M has just launched a new policy saying he wants to scrap them.
The two most 'important' figures in the Labour party aren't talking to one another.
It is a classic split. A gaffe. A complete balls-up
And with regards to being tougher - didn't you notice that the Non-Dom rules got tougher in the Budget last month?
Oh Ben.
Balls states that Labour will toughen up the rules no matter what the cost.
The Tory attack has petered out.
Now, will you Tories do what most of the commentariat is suggesting and bow to the nevitable over non doms?
A competitive tax system is necessary for a thriving economy. Driving wealth creators out is absolutely not.
Balls knew that back in January.
What has changed?
Nothing has changed as far as Tories are concerned. Still defending their rich non domiciled chums.
The voters are watching.
"pwned" as they used to say on Usenet.
Ben and SO are having difficulty with the difference between "scrap" and "tighten up" and expect the electorate to keep up with it all.0 -
SouthamObserver said:
Can you explain how a policy that does not affect 60% of those with non-dom status contradicts anything that Ed Balls said in January?TCPoliticalBetting said:
It is just bizarre watching it unroll. It is a piece of 1984 speak. Labour re-writing what they believe within a few weeks of saying it. If the media cannot nail Labour over this, then we probably know that Labour are untouchable.MikeSmithson said:
Thought they were going to abolish though so how come 60% unaffected ?? Huh?
What does Borked mean. If it means what I think it means then this will go beyond the basic meltdown phase to asteroid event.Scott_P said:@MrHarryCole: The indy expert Miliband cited is a Labour member and admits he borked the numbers: http://t.co/vX0w5kL5fP
0 -
A simply dreadful example of Labour's "talent" on DP show, Shabana Mahmood..... God help us with the incoming Ed Miliband government. Says it is a moral right to change it even if the country loses tax money...0
-
0
This discussion has been closed.