Paul Myners says…
“There is nothing progressive about a Government who consistently spend more than they can raise in taxation, and certainly nothing progressive that endows generations to come with the liabilities incurred by the current generation”.
Another Twittish Tweet from Kerry McCarthy | BBC
What’s the Point of Our Anti-Business Secretary? | Ruth Porter
HuffPo Hiring Pro-Iranian Mehdi “Act of Desperation” | Fox News
Krugman is Seductive, Simplistic and Unrealistic | Jeremy Warner
Lower Taxes, Higher Growth, the Statistical Evidence | CPS
Bash the Unions, Gatecrash the Quangos | ConservativeHome
I Told You So: Euro is Doomed | Douglas Carswell
PM Speaks for the Nation When Bashing Balls | Quentin Letts
Time for an Alliance | Dan Hannan
Farage’s Plan | ConservativeHome
Guardian Open News is a Failure | Heather Brooke
Balls Calls for Deeper Cuts | Speccie
Lessons from the Thirties | CPS
PMQs Idiots | Harry Cole
Jon Cruddas is Not the Messiah | Dan Hodges
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Lord Lamont told ITV News…
“I think the PM is just human and Ed Balls is a pretty irritating person”
Quite. That’s why we need a property tax for millionaires to help us close the deficit. I’m sure they won’t mind – after all, we’re all in this together.
Let’s start with the sequestering of capital assets acquired by the Labour Party whilst in Office Tone and Gordo first.. As a property tax is a favourite “progressive” measure, I’m sure they will wish to set an example. However, as traditional socialist core values on personal wealth is ” everyone else first”, we will wait longer than 13 years for your Utopian measure to be enacted.
Let’s start with a property tax on socialist millionaires since they should mind least of all.
Mandleson, Prescott, Blair, Toynbee all acquired sizeable property portfolios in the last 13 years.
Let’s redistribute it to hard working coalition families, comrades!
Actions which are certain to bankrupt the country and destroy the economy are, by definition, treason.
Brown and his henchmen should be put on trial and then shot – irrespective of any verdict.
which, not who and spends not spend
another reason I am emigrating
Capital A on another.
Myners said it perfectly.
I wouldn’t mind “all being in it together” if we were “all in it together” we ain’t the rich will remain rich & the politicians will simply increase their expenses
I don’t understand which part of “all in it together” means those with more cash forking out for the rest?
Surely it means we should all share an equal burden. It’s not my fault I’m rich, as the socialists are so fond of reminding me.
So why should i be persecuted because of who I was born to eh?