Mcdonnell on politics live has said they are looking at upto £11 billion windfall tax against the oil and gas industries to help with the transition from fossil to green futures and retraining for those effected in the change. That doesn't sound like a vote of confidence in the future employment of the traditional industries in those regions
Interesting read https://www.npr.org/transcripts/630443485?storyId=630443485?storyId=630443485&t=1574343392911
Only if you are a swivel eyed remainer loon who lost a peoples democratic vote. One of the first lines that showed the start of things to come was My guest, journalist Carole Cadwalladr, writes for the British newspapers The Observer and The Guardian. She's been investigating connections between Brexit, the British far-right, the Trump campaign and possible connections between Brexit and Russia I know i have never been part of anything far, let alone right although it did not surprise me to find the author of the article is an observer/guardian write Is there a connection between Trump and Brexit? of course there is. It is in a democratic vote, the losing side on both sides of those votes were so out of touch with reality that they could not believe people thought differently to them and in such numbers. They have also sought to find ANY excuse to still fight the 2016 result no matter what the damage to the country, the judicial system or it's political system. Both sides have had leftist/liberal media seek desperately to run the vote again . Beyond that it can be best described s suck it up losers, you won't bitch when you win
you lost too. you didnt get what you where voting for either. and funnily enough, its your gums that do most of the bumping.
I know, weird right, but you won't see me running to court like a spoilt child because I didn't get my own way either
No more than a society where all sides knowingly and willingly takes part in a peoples majority democratic vote where all knew only one side would win and yet, the side that lost has spent 3 years fighting the result
I'm sorry but Labour's 'plans' feel almost knee jerk, as though they've literally ticked every wish on the list and ran with it just because they may not get another chance with JC at the helm. It's simply not credible to think that these plans won't adversely effect everyone at every earning level, not just the '5%' or 'Big business'. What you'll be guaranteed to get will be price rises, reductions in investment, which will subsequently lead to less jobs, which will subsequently require tax increases further down the earnings level...and on and on and on. It's genuinely farcical. They didn't need to go this far, had they not it'd be refreshing, as it stands they just look desperate and inept to not see the reality of what the knock on effects will be. The IFS statement quoted in the guardian is just one giving a slightly dim view, there are many many more saying much worse whom I trust with basic economics more than the crack pot bunch heading labour. IFS rejects Labour's claim 95% of taxpayers would not need to pay extra to fund its 'colossal' spending programme Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the tax and spending thinktank, has told ITV News that he does not believe Labour’s claim 95% of taxpayers would not need to pay more under its spending plans. He said: It is impossible to understate just how extraordinary this manifesto is just in terms of the sheer scale of money being spent and raised through the tax system: hundreds of billions of additional spending on investment, £80bn plus per year on spending on day to day things, social security, spending on the NHS, student loans and so on, and matched by supposedly an £80bn increase in tax. These are vast numbers, enormous, colossal, in the context of anything we’ve seen in the last - ever, really. Asked if it would be possible to spend this amount of money with tax increases just affecting businesses and the richest 5% of individuals, as Labour claims, Johnson replied: The Labour manifesto suggests they want to raise £80bn of tax revenue, and they suggest that all of that will come from companies and people earning over £80,000 a year. That is simply not credible. We cannot raise that kind of money in our tax system without affecting individuals. Obviously corporate tax affects individuals anyway. Someone has to pay that tax. But if you’re looking about transforming society, which the Labour party is absolutely up front about doing, then you need to pay for it. And it can’t be someone else who pays for it. We collectively will need to pay for it. ITV News (@itvnews) The Institute for Fiscal Studies has told ITV News Labour's manifesto spending and taxation pledges are "colossal" and "not credible". Read more: https://t.co/9IqX8DFX44 pic.twitter.com/6a8iJUyLWN November 21, 2019
No. It IS an interesting read to all except people in extreme denial. I never said it was fact, fiction or anywhere in between. You are too quick off the mark to judge, label and categorise anything that does not fit with your ‘raison d’etere’.
I would agree the nonsense "top 5%" is going to pay for everything, the same slogan they used in the 2017 ge, is farcical. It is not possible to spend that much, from so few, without putting taxes up on every day joe bloggs Watch vehicle taxes go up under the guise of green causes Scrapping uni fee's, another promise from 2017 and again leaves a question unanswered. in 2017 when asked about students currently in uni they said they would look at it. The same again this time except in the manifesto, all they say is Labour will end the failed free-market experiment in higher education, abolish tuition fees and bring back maintenance grants. That's it, no when , how or answering questions about if in current education so paying fees and what do you do for the rest of the course Armed forces surprised me as it says this Labour supports the renewal of the Trident nuclear deterrent. Labour will also actively lead multilateral efforts under our obligations to the Non-Proliferation Treaty to create a nuclear-free world. but wasn't surprised to see this which looks to imply? our amred forces size and effectiveness will be built depending on our carbon footprint Reducing our carbon footprint can only happen with ambitious emissions reduction targets at the Ministry of Defence, one of government’s biggest energy users. So as part of our Green Industrial Revolution, we will create a Climate Change Sustainability Committee within the department to review the feasibility of increasing the use of sustainable energy in defence, and publish a strategy to accelerate the safe and sustainable recycling of our old nuclear submarines. As to Labours promises for Cash to Scotland We will also provide Scotland with at least around £100 billion of additional resources over two terms. This investment will transform Scotland’s people, communities, public services and industries. Labour believes that Scottish independence would be economically devastating and it would be the many not the few who would pay the price. Scotland needs the transformative investment coming from a Labour government, not another referendum and not independence. A UK Labour government will focus on tackling the climate emergency, ending austerity and cuts, and getting Brexit sorted. That’s why in the early years of a UK Labour government we will not agree to a Section 30 order request if it comes from the Scottish Government. It doesn't say how much will be in that first term and how much in the second should they win it? https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Real-Change-Labour-Manifesto-2019.pdf
