I misread his comment at first too, I think he meant ‘based on figures I can’t see that there are enough uk billionaires to fund Labours plans’.
Labours tax the rich more is a policy based on create and maintain a divide, look at labours own front bench, hardly any will be just on £80k £80k according to labour, places you in the top 5% of the U.K.'s richest A radically different approach to taxation is needed – one which targets the real problem of inequality, and goes for the real sources of wealth. Labour’s 2017 manifesto promised £6.4bn of additional taxes on the top 5% of earners – those on more than £80,000 a year. Clive Lewis, shadow treasury secretary 1 year ago https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/12/corbyn-government-new-labour-tax-rich-tories
Labour to my knowledge have never said the 1%er's tax increase would fund anything in particular. Which means it cannot be insufficient to cover it. Noob must know what Labour would spend these raised taxes on bilionaires - otherwise known as "fund what has been promised"- which he could share so we may all realise he is correct.
Possibly true, and all of them will stand and vote for these higher taxes on themselves as well as others.
Cerianly since Corbyn got Labours top job the tax the rich to pay for ..insert what he thinks the nation wants to hear this week..has varied greatly but it is rarely costed and rarely clarified that when they mean the top 5% of the wealthy, they mean from £80k. These tend to be top professionals within our own nhs or self employed who build Britian's future. I doubt you will ever get an accurate figure from labour on this or tie them down to keep to one area this money will be spent on. The real value here on "tax the rich more", is not on the expected revenue, but in the rich versus the poor on pr for labour and little else. Speaking of the nhs, I'm looking forward how the vacancies within it as claimed by Labour, will be helped by nhs staff being forced to only doing a 4 day week
Allegedly the report exposes everything from Russian influence via donations to Top Tories through to a lack of measures to stop this infiltration/ activity - ranging from traditional espionage to subversion. Paddy McGuinness former deputy national security adviser told the BBC not enough had been done to deal with vulnerabilities that the Russians and others could exploit. The report has gone through the formal security clearance process and there was no objection from any government agency or department to its publication. The decision not to publish lies entirely with Downing Street. Possibly Blojob is worried what people will think about his personal position. When foreign secretary Blojob went to a party at an Italian villa hosted by Evgeny Lebedev, who runs the Evening Standard and whose father is a former KGB officer. Of course another ex leading Conservative Osborne is the editor of the paper. Blojob also received for the Tories a £160,000 donation made by a former Russian minister's wife in return for a tennis match with him. She is the ex wife of the deputy finance minister under Mr Putin between 2000 and 2002. If theres nothing sketchy why wouldn't they publish? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43448559 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50366956
That told Ruth well & truly! It seems awful that our government has such a lot of associations with Cambridge Analytica.
Corbs doesn't need any actual Rusky connections, the Express & Daily Mail make them up. Though its usually in the form of "Corbyn the Czech Spy ate my Mum".
Not sure about Corbyn and whether there is any real truth to his ‘connections’. https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/10/0...xtremists-ira-hamas-hezbollah-britain-labour/
