Should we conclude the people criticising Ed aren't in favour of a fairer society
No, I think we should conclude that not many actually believe him any more than they believe any other politician, they only want it to be fairer as long as it benefits themselves.
Should we conclude the people criticising Ed aren't in favour of a fairer society
Ed's idea of fair is watching investment flee the country, taxing people more to pay for their reckless spending and then blaming the Tories/Bankers/Thatcher for when it all goes tits up. Where's the fairness gone in regards to his energy price capping for example? He's already gone and made it less fairer for families with his refusal to tackle the energy companies. Then again, with all the subsidies he levied onto the bills of 'hard working families' when he was energy minister, he's gone schtum, as that would have come back to haunt him when the big six would have been very keen to point out.
If VAT and council tax rises are put forward to pay for their spending, then I don't see how this is fair, as these sorts of tax rises directly impact on the poorest in society. Labour can say they will tax the rich all they want, but they already make a significant contribution. If even 25,000 of the non doms up sticks and ship out if Labour enact that policy, then they will need to look at 2.5m ordinary taxpayers to cover the shortfall in income tax.
I wonder if this whole 'The tories promises are unfunded' is a trap they've set for Labour. Could the Tories tomorrow publish a fully costed manifesto which would kill off the entire attack? Similar to the trap they set Ed prior to the last PMQs when Osborne refused to answer a question several times in front of the select committee.
Also says Britain can only succeed when working people succeed. Sounds very Tory.
Sounds like Labour want to release them on a slow drip each day instead of being in their manifesto. If I was the Conservatives I would go bold with policy tomorrow in their manifesto launch, don't let Labour try and set the political narrative.
I think someones told him to lean on the lectern at various points. Not sure what it's supposed to do. Makes him look casual to me. Let's hope it doesn't collapse.
I think someones told him to lean on the lectern at various points. Not sure what it's supposed to do. Makes him look casual to me. Let's hope it doesn't collapse.
You clearly have had sight of both the draft details of any such legislation and of any consequential amendment to the MPs expenses regulations to be able to say such a thing.:o
Hellfire...you're one of Labour's inner circle after all
Either that or you are making an assumption largely unfounded but more likely just repeating one someone else made.
It's not an assumption. It appeared in the press some time ago. He doesn't pay council tax so why would he pay mansion tax?
Outrage as it emerges Labour's proposed mansion tax will be 'covered by MPs expenses
Last month, Ed Miliband pledged to impose a new 'mansion tax' on homes worth more than £2million if his Labour party win power at next year's general election.
The proposal, designed to raise more cash for the NHS, would see a new charge introduced - based on a series of estimated property-price bands.
However, it has now emerged MPs who own a second home worth more than £2million will dodge the controversial tax.
Although politicians may have voted for the levy, it is likely they will not have to hand over any extra cash because they will be "covered by expenses".
Under current rules, MPs can claim back Council Tax owed on their second homes.
I swear he said under him energy bills would stay the same or fall and not rise......
He just seems to be selling what the Tories are selling. £8 minimum wage, Surplus by 2020, more houses, no VAT rise. It's almost an identical plan. Ironically, not mentioning where the £90bn of cuts will fall. All upsides so far, everything is rosy in Labour's world.
It should be a legal requirement to tell the public the bad news at manifesto launches.
It's not an assumption. It appeared in the press some time ago. He doesn't pay council tax so why would he pay mansion tax?
Outrage as it emerges Labour's proposed mansion tax will be 'covered by MPs expenses
Last month, Ed Miliband pledged to impose a new 'mansion tax' on homes worth more than £2million if his Labour party win power at next year's general election.
The proposal, designed to raise more cash for the NHS, would see a new charge introduced - based on a series of estimated property-price bands.
However, it has now emerged MPs who own a second home worth more than £2million will dodge the controversial tax.
Although politicians may have voted for the levy, it is likely they will not have to hand over any extra cash because they will be "covered by expenses".
Under current rules, MPs can claim back Council Tax owed on their second homes.
Is his house in London the one he claims as a second home? Because if not it wouldn't apply would it?
And it is still an assumption by the Express...the legislation hasn't been written yet...you might just as easily assume it will apply to any/all homes occupied by an MP...but of course that is an assumption that would not fit with the narrative you want to tell.
So either admit you are just parroting someone else's assumption or confess you have seen draft legislation written by a party yet to be elected to government...because until you can neither you, the Express (!!!) or Uncle Tom Cobbly can make such statements with any degree of certitude...beyond furthering your own agendas.
Miliband and Labour opposed the boundary changes purely from party advantage.
I didn't say they didn't. What I was saying was that Cameron gave the boundary Commission a review to undertake that was drawn up to specifically benefit his party. Therefore he politicised the Boundary Commission which gave Labour the opportunity to vote against its recommendations.
Also remember some Tories voted against it too.
He just doesn't ooze that charisma or authority you want from a leader, imagine him on the political world stage...
Yet when up against Paxman it was Miliband who held his own better. I some how can't see Miliband throwing his toys out of the pram and walking out of a key European debate just because no one agreed with him the way Cameron did. So its horses for courses.
Yet when up against Paxman it was Miliband who held his own better. I some how can't see Miliband throwing his toys out of the pram and walking out of a key European debate just because no one agreed with him the way Cameron did. So its horses for courses.
Paxman made it personal with Miliband for reasons unknown, when he grilled him on policy at the beginning he was faltering but then he went on about him stabbing his brother in the back. Paxman could have done a real demolition job on him if he had wanted to.
I think the British public watching the interview felt sorry for him more than anything. Even I felt sorry for him and didn't see the point of that line of questioning.
Comments
LOL
Pass the woad, if you will.
No, I think we should conclude that not many actually believe him any more than they believe any other politician, they only want it to be fairer as long as it benefits themselves.
Ed's idea of fair is watching investment flee the country, taxing people more to pay for their reckless spending and then blaming the Tories/Bankers/Thatcher for when it all goes tits up. Where's the fairness gone in regards to his energy price capping for example? He's already gone and made it less fairer for families with his refusal to tackle the energy companies. Then again, with all the subsidies he levied onto the bills of 'hard working families' when he was energy minister, he's gone schtum, as that would have come back to haunt him when the big six would have been very keen to point out.
If VAT and council tax rises are put forward to pay for their spending, then I don't see how this is fair, as these sorts of tax rises directly impact on the poorest in society. Labour can say they will tax the rich all they want, but they already make a significant contribution. If even 25,000 of the non doms up sticks and ship out if Labour enact that policy, then they will need to look at 2.5m ordinary taxpayers to cover the shortfall in income tax.
Also says Britain can only succeed when working people succeed. Sounds very Tory.
Sounds like Labour want to release them on a slow drip each day instead of being in their manifesto. If I was the Conservatives I would go bold with policy tomorrow in their manifesto launch, don't let Labour try and set the political narrative.
It would be a Parliamentary expense which all M.P.s claim. They don't pay for lots of things the we do such as council tax.
I think he's doing a Commandant Lassard.
It's not an assumption. It appeared in the press some time ago. He doesn't pay council tax so why would he pay mansion tax?
Outrage as it emerges Labour's proposed mansion tax will be 'covered by MPs expenses
Last month, Ed Miliband pledged to impose a new 'mansion tax' on homes worth more than £2million if his Labour party win power at next year's general election.
The proposal, designed to raise more cash for the NHS, would see a new charge introduced - based on a series of estimated property-price bands.
However, it has now emerged MPs who own a second home worth more than £2million will dodge the controversial tax.
Although politicians may have voted for the levy, it is likely they will not have to hand over any extra cash because they will be "covered by expenses".
Under current rules, MPs can claim back Council Tax owed on their second homes.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/527728/mansion-tax-MPs-expenses-Labour
He just seems to be selling what the Tories are selling. £8 minimum wage, Surplus by 2020, more houses, no VAT rise. It's almost an identical plan. Ironically, not mentioning where the £90bn of cuts will fall. All upsides so far, everything is rosy in Labour's world.
It should be a legal requirement to tell the public the bad news at manifesto launches.
I'm sure someone once said the same 100 years ago about the Votes For Women campaign.
Its about time 16 year olds were allowed to vote. Its the only way younger people will start to take an interest in politics.
Is his house in London the one he claims as a second home? Because if not it wouldn't apply would it?
And it is still an assumption by the Express...the legislation hasn't been written yet...you might just as easily assume it will apply to any/all homes occupied by an MP...but of course that is an assumption that would not fit with the narrative you want to tell.
So either admit you are just parroting someone else's assumption or confess you have seen draft legislation written by a party yet to be elected to government...because until you can neither you, the Express (!!!) or Uncle Tom Cobbly can make such statements with any degree of certitude...beyond furthering your own agendas.
I didn't say they didn't. What I was saying was that Cameron gave the boundary Commission a review to undertake that was drawn up to specifically benefit his party. Therefore he politicised the Boundary Commission which gave Labour the opportunity to vote against its recommendations.
Also remember some Tories voted against it too.
Yep. Great speech but then anyone can make a great speech with enough practice. His answers aren't exactly filling me with confidence.
Oh if only life worked like that.
Yet when up against Paxman it was Miliband who held his own better. I some how can't see Miliband throwing his toys out of the pram and walking out of a key European debate just because no one agreed with him the way Cameron did. So its horses for courses.
Paxman made it personal with Miliband for reasons unknown, when he grilled him on policy at the beginning he was faltering but then he went on about him stabbing his brother in the back. Paxman could have done a real demolition job on him if he had wanted to.
I think the British public watching the interview felt sorry for him more than anything. Even I felt sorry for him and didn't see the point of that line of questioning.