Kid has an excellent point, all I've seen her do is slag off Labour and Corbyn, and not demonstrated any form of leadership at all...
Something else to add, why isn't the press hounding for answers about how the Conservatives will pay for their manifesto yet pick at Labour's one even though it has full costings?
It was a child who spotted that the emporer wasn't wearing any clothes!
Kid has an excellent point, all I've seen her do is slag off Labour and Corbyn, and not demonstrated any form of leadership at all...
Something else to add, why isn't the press hounding for answers about how the Conservatives will pay for their manifesto yet pick at Labour's one even though it has full costings?
It was a child who spotted that the emporer wasn't wearing any clothes!
Both parties manifesto's aren't fully costed, the press give more of a hard time to Labour I suspect as one they are probably a little biased towards Conservatives and secondly there is a lot more to pay for in labours.
Labour's manifesto was thoroughly costed - there are some areas you can challenge, but there is not one £ sign in the Tory manifesto. The winter fuel payment removal is a great example - where is the line where it will be removed. There are suggestions it will be around £8k - but the Tories are saying it isn't fair Mick Jagger, or Bernie Ecclestone get it - not somebody with a modest occupation pension they have worked hard for.
May's policy is not to engage and just say she is strong - but you do have to prove it - and their shambles of a manifesto proves teh opposite. I thought it was a good move to avoid debate, with her lead what it was, but because of all the cock ups - it is becoming a bad one. Being risk averse can't be claimed to be strong!
Last time it was slight differences between seemingly interchangable members of the political class. This time there is more clear water between the Tories and Labour. After Labour lose They might try to jettison Corbyn, but I would like to think that they would keep on with this approach rather than revert to political expediency.
On another note all we hear regarding Brexit negotiations is about who is supposed to negotiate, nothing yet about what they intend to negotiate about. There is no chance that a deal will be done by March 2019. At that point I don't want to see extensions for May to and walk away as she has suggested. I want to see full exposure of the disaster of Brexit and the uselessness of the Tories.
The Labour Party have produced a manifesto that has received wide approval. The Tory manifesto has been pulled apart for its lack of detail and the social care element of it widely condemned.
I believe that the approach May has decided to adopt in having hustings based on no policy but purely on sound bites and personal attacks has irked a lot of the electorate. They are, given the lead in the polls a few weeks ago making a pigs ear of it.
Corbyn has never had a better opportunity to get out there on TV and drive home the point yet he refused to engage in the televised debate. Why ? He's a decent enough speaker. People won't vote for him because they don't trust him. He needs the mass exposure of televised debate to help change that perception.
You have to question his judgement in letting May off the hook with this.
I believe the Tory policy for care may be well-meaning but ultimately is not what is needed or indeed wanted by most of the population. It doesn't particularly encourage or discourage people from saving for their care so we'll all muddle along as we do now without giving it much consideration until it happens.
In the end, we need some sort of "compulsory" insurance where everybody pays in and anyone can claim the cost of care at the end of their lives if they need it. There's many ways to do this ranging from a "care insurance" tax to allowing individuals to choose from private providers as we do with car insurance. I would be happy to move forward with any of these possibilities although I would prefer a simple tax increase for everyone cover their insurance.
I think Theresa May has simply got this one wrong - nothing to do with any particular political ideology.
National Insurance is the basic principle, it exists and can be shaped (increased) according to circumstances. Having a dog and barking yourself springs to mind.
I believe the Tory policy for care may be well-meaning but ultimately is not what is needed or indeed wanted by most of the population. It doesn't particularly encourage or discourage people from saving for their care so we'll all muddle along as we do now without giving it much consideration until it happens.
In the end, we need some sort of "compulsory" insurance where everybody pays in and anyone can claim the cost of care at the end of their lives if they need it. There's many ways to do this ranging from a "care insurance" tax to allowing individuals to choose from private providers as we do with car insurance. I would be happy to move forward with any of these possibilities although I would prefer a simple tax increase for everyone cover their insurance.
I think Theresa May has simply got this one wrong - nothing to do with any particular political ideology.
That's not a bad idea - have every person pay a fraction of their monthly salary into a fund to invest in something to help and care for the population, that ensures no one regardless of the wealth is left worse off because they are unfortunate enough to suffer from an illness through no fault of their own.
Social care funding is a nettle that no politician wants to fully grasp. It's a time bomb. It's obvious that this latest attempt by the conservatives is not either popular or adequately thought through.
Why the cost can't be catered for from general taxation where the burden is shared equally I can't understand. Nobody will like being asked to pay more but it's essential that politicians are honest and clear with the people and tell the truth.
But getting this wrong could cost honest hard working people hundreds of thousands. If you have kids, you worry about the cost of university - There are lots of people that could start doing the maths and that won't help May. Labour have halved the lead according to polls today!
I doubt that many ,minds will be changed by the manifestos, or rather, I doubt people will vote for different parties based on the manifestos. The question is whether both sides can get their voters out. Can Labour get the millions of under 35s to vote (more likely to vote labour), and can May get the over 65s out? If I recall, John Major got more votes in 1992 than Blair managed in 1997, it was just the the conservative vote melted and took three elections to return. The result was a huge dip in the turnout. I've been reading about the polling, and one of the main reasons they got it wrong in 2015 was based on turnout models. this has been adjusted for the current polls, and possibly why the tories are so far ahead - a much more realistic view of who will actually vote.
I just hope that the turnout is high across all age groups.
The Labour Party have produced a manifesto that has received wide approval. The Tory manifesto has been pulled apart for its lack of detail and the social care element of it widely condemned.
I believe that the approach May has decided to adopt in having hustings based on no policy but purely on sound bites and personal attacks has irked a lot of the electorate. They are, given the lead in the polls a few weeks ago making a pigs ear of it.
Corbyn has never had a better opportunity to get out there on TV and drive home the point yet he refused to engage in the televised debate. Why ? He's a decent enough speaker. People won't vote for him because they don't trust him. He needs the mass exposure of televised debate to help change that perception.
You have to question his judgement in letting May off the hook with this.
I see it another way, it was lose lose for corbyn to take part in the leadership debate once May pulled out. If he was good, it's as expected against parties with no hope. Get battered and he's not fit to lead. The best he could hope for is 'who cares?'
Contrast that with a largely positive weekend of getting out and appealing to voters directly, and without looking contrived, and I reckon he's come out of it in the black. (Polls indicate this too, for what they're worth).
This week will see a switch back to negative personals from Theresa, the Tories and the press and very sadly this will swing the polls back to the conservatives.
No corbyn fan, and the concept and underlying rhetoric of momentum worries me and think he'll be a disaster in charge, but I'm hoping labour can do some damage to the Tories in what is a shamefully cynical election.
Social care funding is a nettle that no politician wants to fully grasp. It's a time bomb. It's obvious that this latest attempt by the conservatives is not either popular or adequately thought through.
Why the cost can't be catered for from general taxation where the burden is shared equally I can't understand. Nobody will like being asked to pay more but it's essential that politicians are honest and clear with the people and tell the truth.
Fat chance.
The cost would be huge to the tax payer, if it was that simple labour would have said 'another 5p on all income tax bands to pay for care'. Even labour know people are going to have to contribute to their own care where they can, it's just a matter of how much. You may not like the conservatives plan but as far as I can see Labour don't have one in this respect (funding).
Mutely, Labour may have said how much some of what they are promising will cost, but it's far from clear how they will pay for it. My overriding concern is even the parts that are 'funded' by say the income tax rise or offshore property companies don't allow for the fact that people will change what and how they do things so the actual collected sum will be hugely different to the stated amounts. Let alone Corp tax.
A good point and I think you will find that has been built in to the calculations. The estimates on the money the tax rises will bring in have been purposely conservative - if you can excuse the pun!
Social care funding is a nettle that no politician wants to fully grasp. It's a time bomb. It's obvious that this latest attempt by the conservatives is not either popular or adequately thought through.
Why the cost can't be catered for from general taxation where the burden is shared equally I can't understand. Nobody will like being asked to pay more but it's essential that politicians are honest and clear with the people and tell the truth.
Fat chance.
The cost would be huge to the tax payer, if it was that simple labour would have said 'another 5p on all income tax bands to pay for care'. Even labour know people are going to have to contribute to their own care where they can, it's just a matter of how much. You may not like the conservatives plan but as far as I can see Labour don't have one in this respect (funding).
Mutely, Labour may have said how much some of what they are promising will cost, but it's far from clear how they will pay for it. My overriding concern is even the parts that are 'funded' by say the income tax rise or offshore property companies don't allow for the fact that people will change what and how they do things so the actual collected sum will be hugely different to the stated amounts. Let alone Corp tax.
The cost is huge regardless. Much better to spread the burden than expect the few unlucky ones to fend for themselves.
Dementia is a disease. It's not like it's brought on by a poor lifestyle choice like smoking or boozing. Both of which don't attract such a draconian method of funding for the problems they cause us all.
It has to be paid for from the general pot. It's the only logical solution and if that costs us all a few quid more then so be it.
The problem is the spineless, gutless politicians we have who would rather feather their own party prospects rather than tell the harsh truth which they fear might cost them a few votes.
I despise politicians more and more the older I get.
A good point and I think you will find that has been built in to the calculations. The estimates on the money the tax rises will bring in have been purposely conservative - if you can excuse the pun!
Good Pun!
We'll have to disagree on that one Mutley, some of their costing document specifically states they haven't taken into account the behavioural impact. On income tax they have taken the Inland Revenue figures and only made an allowance for Scotland who has independence on that.
Myself alone they have calculated i'll pay £10k more in income Tax, in reality it'll be £2k maximum they collect extra. On the assumption that people would have spent at least a proportion of what they will now pay in tax they haven't allowed for a lower amount of VAT collected. On corporation tax where companies can and it's more efficient they'll do business elsewhere, if my company pays on average £20m in corporation tax per annum I'd guess within 5 years that'll be down to a few million at best.
Even those companies who don't do anything, will they pay lower bonuses to staff and therefore the tax take will be less?
There are so many unknowns in Labours manifesto costs/expenses, just like there are in the conservatives, the difference is the huge additional spend in Labours.
This is NOT a pro Labour assessement of their manifesto, but one made by Sky - owned as we know by Rupert Murdoch. Now you can sit an pick holes in elements, but the level of detail Labour is providing is unprecedented for a major political party. I have added a link, because whether you want to pick holes in this or that, you can see how they intend to pay for their pledges. It would be impossible to do that with the Conservative manifesto. Damian Green - touted to be the next chancellor, was suggesting extra money pledged to the NHS would be taken from, er the NHS? At least that is what it sounded like, it looked totally unfunded and unclear.
I'm not saying the posters on here are guilty of this, but lots of people who are saying - how can they afford it have no understanding of economics and just say what the press keeps saying. A lot of economists have been advocating similar policies.
A line is shown in their costing document that covers behaviour changes - £3.9bn I think it is - I'msure it is in the video below.
We will see - she certainly needs to up her game - I don't think Cameron would have made such a hash of things. Maybe it was arrogance, but the Conservative manifesto was full of holes with suicidal policies that hit trdaitional Tory voters.
I passionately believe that to get the deal on Europe that we need to get, Corbyn's more pragmatic approach is more likely to succeed that the threats to take the ball away, when the EU has its own ball! I can't see anything May has done that suggests she is a good leader - I know lots of people despise her, even a number in her own party!
Agree on all those points - I just don't think lots of people in this country will also agree unfortunately!
I was at a very pro Corbyn dinner party this weekend. The faithful are taking the Hebden Bridge and Tranmere rallies as the first sign that he's turning the tide and seem genuinely positive.
A good point and I think you will find that has been built in to the calculations. The estimates on the money the tax rises will bring in have been purposely conservative - if you can excuse the pun!
Good Pun!
We'll have to disagree on that one Mutley, some of their costing document specifically states they haven't taken into account the behavioural impact. On income tax they have taken the Inland Revenue figures and only made an allowance for Scotland who has independence on that.
Myself alone they have calculated i'll pay £10k more in income Tax, in reality it'll be £2k maximum they collect extra. On the assumption that people would have spent at least a proportion of what they will now pay in tax they haven't allowed for a lower amount of VAT collected. On corporation tax where companies can and it's more efficient they'll do business elsewhere, if my company pays on average £20m in corporation tax per annum I'd guess within 5 years that'll be down to a few million at best.
Even those companies who don't do anything, will they pay lower bonuses to staff and therefore the tax take will be less?
There are so many unknowns in Labours manifesto costs/expenses, just like there are in the conservatives, the difference is the huge additional spend in Labours.
There is a line in the costings document covering behavioural changes - they have costed £3.9 billion. I would encourage people to read it - if they do that and think the policies are not deliverable - fair enough!
A good point and I think you will find that has been built in to the calculations. The estimates on the money the tax rises will bring in have been purposely conservative - if you can excuse the pun!
Good Pun!
We'll have to disagree on that one Mutley, some of their costing document specifically states they haven't taken into account the behavioural impact. On income tax they have taken the Inland Revenue figures and only made an allowance for Scotland who has independence on that.
Myself alone they have calculated i'll pay £10k more in income Tax, in reality it'll be £2k maximum they collect extra. On the assumption that people would have spent at least a proportion of what they will now pay in tax they haven't allowed for a lower amount of VAT collected. On corporation tax where companies can and it's more efficient they'll do business elsewhere, if my company pays on average £20m in corporation tax per annum I'd guess within 5 years that'll be down to a few million at best.
Even those companies who don't do anything, will they pay lower bonuses to staff and therefore the tax take will be less?
There are so many unknowns in Labours manifesto costs/expenses, just like there are in the conservatives, the difference is the huge additional spend in Labours.
There is a line in the costings document covering behavioural changes - they have costed £3.9 billion. I would encourage people to read it - if they do that and think the policies are not deliverable - fair enough!
Agreed at £3.9bn line which is less than 7.5%,
So comes down to do you believe even of the direct 40.5bn (19.4bn Corp Tax, 6.4bn Income Tax, 1.3bn Pay Levy, 1.6bn offshore property, 6.5bn Tax avoidance, 3.7bn IHT etc, 1.6bn Private school fee's) will yield all of that bar 3.9bn? i.e. they'll achieve over 90% tax take? Personally I think they'll be lucky to get anywhere near 50%. It simply won't happen.
I was at a very pro Corbyn dinner party this weekend. The faithful are taking the Hebden Bridge and Tranmere rallies as the first sign that he's turning the tide and seem genuinely positive.
In the US election of 1956 a Democratic voter approached her candidate, the erudite Adlai Stephenson.
"Oh Adlai! ," she exclaimed, " Good luck tomorrow, every thinking American will be voting for you."
A good point and I think you will find that has been built in to the calculations. The estimates on the money the tax rises will bring in have been purposely conservative - if you can excuse the pun!
Good Pun!
We'll have to disagree on that one Mutley, some of their costing document specifically states they haven't taken into account the behavioural impact. On income tax they have taken the Inland Revenue figures and only made an allowance for Scotland who has independence on that.
Myself alone they have calculated i'll pay £10k more in income Tax, in reality it'll be £2k maximum they collect extra. On the assumption that people would have spent at least a proportion of what they will now pay in tax they haven't allowed for a lower amount of VAT collected. On corporation tax where companies can and it's more efficient they'll do business elsewhere, if my company pays on average £20m in corporation tax per annum I'd guess within 5 years that'll be down to a few million at best.
Even those companies who don't do anything, will they pay lower bonuses to staff and therefore the tax take will be less?
There are so many unknowns in Labours manifesto costs/expenses, just like there are in the conservatives, the difference is the huge additional spend in Labours.
There is a line in the costings document covering behavioural changes - they have costed £3.9 billion. I would encourage people to read it - if they do that and think the policies are not deliverable - fair enough!
Agreed at £3.9bn line which is less than 7.5%,
So comes down to do you believe even of the direct 40.5bn (19.4bn Corp Tax, 6.4bn Income Tax, 1.3bn Pay Levy, 1.6bn offshore property, 6.5bn Tax avoidance, 3.7bn IHT etc, 1.6bn Private school fee's) will yield all of that bar 3.9bn? i.e. they'll achieve over 90% tax take? Personally I think they'll be lucky to get anywhere near 50%. It simply won't happen.
Yes, you can argue that -it becomes a better informed argument -I can pick bigger holes in the Tory manifesto - but you were saying it wasn't there at all a few posts ago!
A good point and I think you will find that has been built in to the calculations. The estimates on the money the tax rises will bring in have been purposely conservative - if you can excuse the pun!
Good Pun!
We'll have to disagree on that one Mutley, some of their costing document specifically states they haven't taken into account the behavioural impact. On income tax they have taken the Inland Revenue figures and only made an allowance for Scotland who has independence on that.
Myself alone they have calculated i'll pay £10k more in income Tax, in reality it'll be £2k maximum they collect extra. On the assumption that people would have spent at least a proportion of what they will now pay in tax they haven't allowed for a lower amount of VAT collected. On corporation tax where companies can and it's more efficient they'll do business elsewhere, if my company pays on average £20m in corporation tax per annum I'd guess within 5 years that'll be down to a few million at best.
Even those companies who don't do anything, will they pay lower bonuses to staff and therefore the tax take will be less?
There are so many unknowns in Labours manifesto costs/expenses, just like there are in the conservatives, the difference is the huge additional spend in Labours.
There is a line in the costings document covering behavioural changes - they have costed £3.9 billion. I would encourage people to read it - if they do that and think the policies are not deliverable - fair enough!
Agreed at £3.9bn line which is less than 7.5%,
So comes down to do you believe even of the direct 40.5bn (19.4bn Corp Tax, 6.4bn Income Tax, 1.3bn Pay Levy, 1.6bn offshore property, 6.5bn Tax avoidance, 3.7bn IHT etc, 1.6bn Private school fee's) will yield all of that bar 3.9bn? i.e. they'll achieve over 90% tax take? Personally I think they'll be lucky to get anywhere near 50%. It simply won't happen.
Yes, you can argue that -it becomes a better informed argument -I can pick bigger holes in the Tory manifesto - but you were saying it wasn't there at all a few posts ago!
Indeed I was but then I was working on the 48bn sub total not 50.5bn! Either way all manifestos are a load of tosh!
Social care funding is a nettle that no politician wants to fully grasp. It's a time bomb. It's obvious that this latest attempt by the conservatives is not either popular or adequately thought through.
Why the cost can't be catered for from general taxation where the burden is shared equally I can't understand. Nobody will like being asked to pay more but it's essential that politicians are honest and clear with the people and tell the truth.
Fat chance.
The cost would be huge to the tax payer, if it was that simple labour would have said 'another 5p on all income tax bands to pay for care'. Even labour know people are going to have to contribute to their own care where they can, it's just a matter of how much. You may not like the conservatives plan but as far as I can see Labour don't have one in this respect (funding).
Mutely, Labour may have said how much some of what they are promising will cost, but it's far from clear how they will pay for it. My overriding concern is even the parts that are 'funded' by say the income tax rise or offshore property companies don't allow for the fact that people will change what and how they do things so the actual collected sum will be hugely different to the stated amounts. Let alone Corp tax.
The thing is that while of course you are right, commimtments must be seen to be funded, your post and many like it seem to imply that these are uniquely British problems (both care and uni fees); but patently they are not, and other countries worthy of your general admiration seem to be funding the issues from general taxation (even if some of it may be ring-fenced, most EU countries have separate 'social charge' taxes, equivalent to NI, and often at a much higher rate). The solutions are out there, but as @ShootersHillGuru says, our politicians are too spineless to grasp them.
It was part of the £48bn sub total - your homework is to read it again. What has been betrayed is the fact that you haven't read it - and you are lecturing people who have! Read it, then your position carries more weight.
The Tory party manifesto is a load of tosh, even tory party members are saying so. But the Labour manifesto has been lauded by independant economists - I find it amazing they produced this comprehensive document with full costings on one side of the balance sheet and full costings on the other and the Tories who called the snap election seemed to have wrote theirs on the back of a fag packet!
Rob7Lee - it is clearly going to cost you some money in taxes if Labour get it - it may cost me - but it won't cost most people and when you consider the dementia tax and if you have a son or daughter who may have aspirations of further education, you will get some if not all of it back. And you will be living in a better Britain. If more people have more money, I know my business will thrive.
Comments
May's policy is not to engage and just say she is strong - but you do have to prove it - and their shambles of a manifesto proves teh opposite. I thought it was a good move to avoid debate, with her lead what it was, but because of all the cock ups - it is becoming a bad one. Being risk averse can't be claimed to be strong!
This time there is more clear water between the Tories and Labour.
After Labour lose They might try to jettison Corbyn, but I would like to think that they would keep on with this approach rather than revert to political expediency.
On another note all we hear regarding Brexit negotiations is about who is supposed to negotiate, nothing yet about what they intend to negotiate about.
There is no chance that a deal will be done by March 2019.
At that point I don't want to see extensions for May to and walk away as she has suggested.
I want to see full exposure of the disaster of Brexit and the uselessness of the Tories.
I believe that the approach May has decided to adopt in having hustings based on no policy but purely on sound bites and personal attacks has irked a lot of the electorate. They are, given the lead in the polls a few weeks ago making a pigs ear of it.
Corbyn has never had a better opportunity to get out there on TV and drive home the point yet he refused to engage in the televised debate. Why ? He's a decent enough speaker. People won't vote for him because they don't trust him. He needs the mass exposure of televised debate to help change that perception.
You have to question his judgement in letting May off the hook with this.
In the end, we need some sort of "compulsory" insurance where everybody pays in and anyone can claim the cost of care at the end of their lives if they need it. There's many ways to do this ranging from a "care insurance" tax to allowing individuals to choose from private providers as we do with car insurance. I would be happy to move forward with any of these possibilities although I would prefer a simple tax increase for everyone cover their insurance.
I think Theresa May has simply got this one wrong - nothing to do with any particular political ideology.
Having a dog and barking yourself springs to mind.
Why the cost can't be catered for from general taxation where the burden is shared equally I can't understand. Nobody will like being asked to pay more but it's essential that politicians are honest and clear with the people and tell the truth.
Fat chance.
I just hope that the turnout is high across all age groups.
Contrast that with a largely positive weekend of getting out and appealing to voters directly, and without looking contrived, and I reckon he's come out of it in the black. (Polls indicate this too, for what they're worth).
This week will see a switch back to negative personals from Theresa, the Tories and the press and very sadly this will swing the polls back to the conservatives.
No corbyn fan, and the concept and underlying rhetoric of momentum worries me and think he'll be a disaster in charge, but I'm hoping labour can do some damage to the Tories in what is a shamefully cynical election.
Mutely, Labour may have said how much some of what they are promising will cost, but it's far from clear how they will pay for it. My overriding concern is even the parts that are 'funded' by say the income tax rise or offshore property companies don't allow for the fact that people will change what and how they do things so the actual collected sum will be hugely different to the stated amounts. Let alone Corp tax.
Haven't a clue.
But now you've mentioned it, I seem to be doing the same......
Spooky, or what?
Dementia is a disease. It's not like it's brought on by a poor lifestyle choice like smoking or boozing. Both of which don't attract such a draconian method of funding for the problems they cause us all.
It has to be paid for from the general pot. It's the only logical solution and if that costs us all a few quid more then so be it.
The problem is the spineless, gutless politicians we have who would rather feather their own party prospects rather than tell the harsh truth which they fear might cost them a few votes.
I despise politicians more and more the older I get.
We'll have to disagree on that one Mutley, some of their costing document specifically states they haven't taken into account the behavioural impact. On income tax they have taken the Inland Revenue figures and only made an allowance for Scotland who has independence on that.
Myself alone they have calculated i'll pay £10k more in income Tax, in reality it'll be £2k maximum they collect extra. On the assumption that people would have spent at least a proportion of what they will now pay in tax they haven't allowed for a lower amount of VAT collected. On corporation tax where companies can and it's more efficient they'll do business elsewhere, if my company pays on average £20m in corporation tax per annum I'd guess within 5 years that'll be down to a few million at best.
Even those companies who don't do anything, will they pay lower bonuses to staff and therefore the tax take will be less?
There are so many unknowns in Labours manifesto costs/expenses, just like there are in the conservatives, the difference is the huge additional spend in Labours.
I'm not saying the posters on here are guilty of this, but lots of people who are saying - how can they afford it have no understanding of economics and just say what the press keeps saying. A lot of economists have been advocating similar policies.
A line is shown in their costing document that covers behaviour changes - £3.9bn I think it is - I'msure it is in the video below.
http://news.sky.com/video/examining-the-detail-of-labours-manifesto-10880003
So comes down to do you believe even of the direct 40.5bn (19.4bn Corp Tax, 6.4bn Income Tax, 1.3bn Pay Levy, 1.6bn offshore property, 6.5bn Tax avoidance, 3.7bn IHT etc, 1.6bn Private school fee's) will yield all of that bar 3.9bn? i.e. they'll achieve over 90% tax take? Personally I think they'll be lucky to get anywhere near 50%. It simply won't happen.
"Oh Adlai! ," she exclaimed, " Good luck tomorrow, every thinking American will be voting for you."
"Won't be enough," he said.
The Tory party manifesto is a load of tosh, even tory party members are saying so. But the Labour manifesto has been lauded by independant economists - I find it amazing they produced this comprehensive document with full costings on one side of the balance sheet and full costings on the other and the Tories who called the snap election seemed to have wrote theirs on the back of a fag packet!
Rob7Lee - it is clearly going to cost you some money in taxes if Labour get it - it may cost me - but it won't cost most people and when you consider the dementia tax and if you have a son or daughter who may have aspirations of further education, you will get some if not all of it back. And you will be living in a better Britain. If more people have more money, I know my business will thrive.