By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Emily Thornberry interview on Andrew Neil earlier. on 08:12 - Jan 23 by Hunterhoop
As someone that doesn’t vote for Lab or Cons but wants to see Lab become an effective opposition so the potential for a centre left coalition increases, I think it has to be a straight choice between Nandy and Starmer now.
Some very good points raised on the latter on here about whether he’d resonate in the North. However, he is intelligent, a good public speaker, good in the Commons, and will be much more effective at holding Boris to account. Remember Labour don’t just need to win back the north; they need to win back middle England. For all his faults, Blair did manage to do both. You can’t get close to winning an election without taking some middle England seats off the Tories. So your leader needs to appeal to them too. Starmer might.
That said, I do tend to agree that Nandy is the right profile, if currently less experienced. A female leader; born and raised in the North West; not associated with Corbyn; a daughter of an immigrant; a pretty clean career to date, and she appears to be the one listening most to the electorate. She might be able to win back the north whilst also gaining some middle England seats.
[Post edited 23 Jan 2020 8:35]
nm
[Post edited 23 Jan 2020 9:56]
If not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled. PG Wodehouse
Emily Thornberry interview on Andrew Neil earlier. on 08:12 - Jan 23 by Hunterhoop
As someone that doesn’t vote for Lab or Cons but wants to see Lab become an effective opposition so the potential for a centre left coalition increases, I think it has to be a straight choice between Nandy and Starmer now.
Some very good points raised on the latter on here about whether he’d resonate in the North. However, he is intelligent, a good public speaker, good in the Commons, and will be much more effective at holding Boris to account. Remember Labour don’t just need to win back the north; they need to win back middle England. For all his faults, Blair did manage to do both. You can’t get close to winning an election without taking some middle England seats off the Tories. So your leader needs to appeal to them too. Starmer might.
That said, I do tend to agree that Nandy is the right profile, if currently less experienced. A female leader; born and raised in the North West; not associated with Corbyn; a daughter of an immigrant; a pretty clean career to date, and she appears to be the one listening most to the electorate. She might be able to win back the north whilst also gaining some middle England seats.
[Post edited 23 Jan 2020 8:35]
nm - not sure what happened
[Post edited 23 Jan 2020 9:57]
If not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled. PG Wodehouse
Emily Thornberry interview on Andrew Neil earlier. on 08:12 - Jan 23 by Hunterhoop
As someone that doesn’t vote for Lab or Cons but wants to see Lab become an effective opposition so the potential for a centre left coalition increases, I think it has to be a straight choice between Nandy and Starmer now.
Some very good points raised on the latter on here about whether he’d resonate in the North. However, he is intelligent, a good public speaker, good in the Commons, and will be much more effective at holding Boris to account. Remember Labour don’t just need to win back the north; they need to win back middle England. For all his faults, Blair did manage to do both. You can’t get close to winning an election without taking some middle England seats off the Tories. So your leader needs to appeal to them too. Starmer might.
That said, I do tend to agree that Nandy is the right profile, if currently less experienced. A female leader; born and raised in the North West; not associated with Corbyn; a daughter of an immigrant; a pretty clean career to date, and she appears to be the one listening most to the electorate. She might be able to win back the north whilst also gaining some middle England seats.
[Post edited 23 Jan 2020 8:35]
Right here we go...
Been a big fan of Nandy for ages, long before the leadership campaign. Everything the labour party needs, pragmatic, likeable, warm, good graps of policy, generally great in front of the media - helps that she's female and from the North, but she's much more than that.
However, while I can't imagine how difficult it must be to go through the grueling leadership process I think she has made two significant tactical errors.Both of which I'm stunned by.
First off loudly championing free movement might help with some of the labour membership, but come general election time is going to do nothing to help bring back the lost brexity labour voters.
She needed to say that she campaigned for remain which included free movement, she is frightened by what a tory Brexit will look like re workers rights, but that was during the referendum and no point looking backwards. The tories have a big majority for time being and they have pledged to scrap free movement.
I cannot for the life of me understanding why she would needlessly bring it up herself as something she would always fight for. Thornberry (who is unelectable) gave a much more savvy answer to the same question.
The other issue was the crude equation of Catalonia and Scotland. She explained it afterwards, it was nuanced, she was never in support of police atrocities or the then right wing governments, but it went down like a lead balloon in Scotland and will make it much harder for her to win back labour voters there.
She will still get my vote, but really needs to get it together for the next few weeks.
[Post edited 23 Jan 2020 10:10]
If not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled. PG Wodehouse
Emily Thornberry interview on Andrew Neil earlier. on 09:04 - Jan 23 by MrSheen
Not that I’m the person for Labour voters to take advice from, but I also think Nandy would be their best bet for winning an election. However, I have to express my admiration for RLB’s principled position on late abortion. She has alienated supporters and handed a potent weapon to her rivals for no advantage to herself, to stand up for what she believes (disclosure, I completely agree with her, on this at least).
She vote in favour of legalising abortion in NI at the first and last opportunity. Proper media hatchet job that one.
0
Emily Thornberry interview on Andrew Neil earlier. on 10:05 - Jan 23 with 1235 views
Emily Thornberry interview on Andrew Neil earlier. on 09:42 - Jan 23 by BlackCrowe
I too want the best opposition possible.
I like Nandy...she's smart and calm but just don't think she has sufficient presence/gravitas.
If Starmer gets it, and gets the likes of Nandy, Yvette Cooper, Benn, Kinnock, Phillips, Austin (to sort the anti-semite tag), Bryant, Eagle...they might just have the start of something. Momentum and hard left supporters will hate it though.
I would rather have a Labour government that makes a positive difference to the daily lives of the most disadvantaged in our society, than I would have an ideologically pure Labour party unable to win elections and unable to even form an effective opposition. It would be lovely if the rest of the country came round to my way of thinking and those able to were prepared to pay more tax to properly fund public services, ensure decent housing, bring key infrastructure and services back into public ownership etc, but I'm not sure that's about to happen, so for now I'll take a pragmatic Labour party in power doing 50% of what I'd ideally like to see.
I know Brexit and Corbyn's personal unpopularity clouded the issue, but parts of the country which have literally never returned a Tory MP, voted for a dishonest, blustering, posh-as-fu ck, old Etonian Tory rather than Corbyn. Corbyn, who was offering them about 90% of what even the most far-left could "realistically" hope to see in a British GE manifesto. And they got hammered in their heartlands. That doesn't suggest to me that the centre has lost the argument.
At the moment, I think I'd be happy with Nandy or Starmer. It would be nice for Labour to finally have a female leader, and I can see the appeal of having someone from a North-Western town, rather than London, but my hunch is that Starmer might have more gravitas and fare better in Middle England (which Labour can't win without). He's from working class roots, has done well professionally off his own back and seems comfortable in front of the media. Now, that probably isn't what should count, but unfortunately, it does. I also think there's enough about a few other members of the Labour party that they might actually look like a viable government come the next election.
Fulham FC: It's the taking part that counts
1
Emily Thornberry interview on Andrew Neil earlier. on 10:25 - Jan 23 with 1191 views
Emily Thornberry interview on Andrew Neil earlier. on 10:01 - Jan 23 by BazzaInTheLoft
She vote in favour of legalising abortion in NI at the first and last opportunity. Proper media hatchet job that one.
I thought she was in favour of legal abortion up to 24 weeks, but didn’t think there should be an exemption to full term for abnormalities or disability. She was set upon by those who deny any role for the law in what happens to the “bundle of cells” in a woman’s body up to the time of birth.
I would have the abortion limit at 20 weeks, not 24, but otherwise I am with her.
[Post edited 23 Jan 2020 11:01]
0
Emily Thornberry interview on Andrew Neil earlier. on 10:51 - Jan 23 with 1114 views
Emily Thornberry interview on Andrew Neil earlier. on 10:16 - Jan 23 by Konk
I would rather have a Labour government that makes a positive difference to the daily lives of the most disadvantaged in our society, than I would have an ideologically pure Labour party unable to win elections and unable to even form an effective opposition. It would be lovely if the rest of the country came round to my way of thinking and those able to were prepared to pay more tax to properly fund public services, ensure decent housing, bring key infrastructure and services back into public ownership etc, but I'm not sure that's about to happen, so for now I'll take a pragmatic Labour party in power doing 50% of what I'd ideally like to see.
I know Brexit and Corbyn's personal unpopularity clouded the issue, but parts of the country which have literally never returned a Tory MP, voted for a dishonest, blustering, posh-as-fu ck, old Etonian Tory rather than Corbyn. Corbyn, who was offering them about 90% of what even the most far-left could "realistically" hope to see in a British GE manifesto. And they got hammered in their heartlands. That doesn't suggest to me that the centre has lost the argument.
At the moment, I think I'd be happy with Nandy or Starmer. It would be nice for Labour to finally have a female leader, and I can see the appeal of having someone from a North-Western town, rather than London, but my hunch is that Starmer might have more gravitas and fare better in Middle England (which Labour can't win without). He's from working class roots, has done well professionally off his own back and seems comfortable in front of the media. Now, that probably isn't what should count, but unfortunately, it does. I also think there's enough about a few other members of the Labour party that they might actually look like a viable government come the next election.
Sensible argument except the averagely and lower paid simply don't believe any Labour Government when they say they'll only tax the rich.
The proof was in the puddin'. The last period of Labour Government saw those peoples pensions literally stolen from them by Gordon Brown, ask ANYBODY on a privately self funded pension, and the personal allowance (the bit you earn before you pay tax) held so low for so long that it became a huge tax burden on the poorest in working society.
The Tories had the good sense (finally) to set up work pensions for all employees, this one of those rare long term plans that does no immediate favours for them politically but will help younger employees no end when they eventually reach pension age.
They've also shifted the personal allowance from circa £5,500 under Labour to nigh on £12500 now, a huge help for those on low and average pay.
Also, I love this term '...those able to were prepared to pay more tax to properly fund public services'. Exactly who are these people who can afford to pay more tax?
Let's leave aside for a moment those who earn in excess of £100k, they are so few in number and pay a fair amount of tax already so any further workable sum you could extract would be like pissing in the wind as far as making any difference to the deficit in public services.
So that leaves everybody on less than 100k.
This forum has a broad spectrum of earners, I would guess. So who on here reckons they've got far too much disposable income, far more than they need to look after themselves, their family, pay the mortgage, the bills etc etc. If you're one of these people, how much income have you got burning a hole in your pocket that you can hand over to provide further aid to public services, money you literally don't need. And how much?
Truth is, I think you'll find there aren't many. If any.
1
Emily Thornberry interview on Andrew Neil earlier. on 11:03 - Jan 23 with 1094 views
Emily Thornberry interview on Andrew Neil earlier. on 09:06 - Jan 23 by kropotkin41
Couple of things about this:
1. It's really imoportant , if we'rew going to be grown up that people who consider themselves of the Centre or Centre-Left have a proper look at Corbyn's achievements *Jaws drop*. In 2017 with a more radical manifesto he secured the biggest swing to Labour since 1945, and even in 2019 Labour still did comparably (pop vote) to several recent elections.
2. If anything seems to be have been rejected in 2019, it was the "Centre".
3. For the bulk of the mass media it doesn't matter who leads the Labour Party they will be a prime target. It happened to Brown, Milliband, and Corbyn, it happened all those years ago to Foot. Unless the Lab leader is a close personal friend of Murdoch, they'll be attacked.
4. If no-one over 45 had voted, Labour would have won the election - that's really important unless you think youngsters are suddenly going to have all the opportunities to buy houses and have secure jobs and pensions that the older lot had. They're not going to become Tories.
5. You might be Remain, you might hate what's happening, but touching on 70 of the seats lab will need to win in 2024 (Bit of a faint hope, I'd say) were Leave seats. A Remainer leader banging on about the EU is going to get Labour properly done next time around. (In any event Guy Verhofstadt is probably right, the next generation will take us back into the EU anyway.... long game.)
6. Finally, the Labour Movement is a shambles, and turning up on people's doorsteps and asking for their vote every few years is no way for the Left to behave. It's much l;ess important to just win in 2024 than it is to address the long term malaise in community and workplace organising. The Left needs to build communities and bring people together, and that can't be done in Westminster, and won't be done by the likes of Starmer. Labour is the biggest Left(ish) party in Europe, half a million members, they need to get properly active..... and then the votes will come because people will believe them.
Really interesting debate on here — and the one point I would like to echo above all others is the absolute importance (IMHO) of POINT 4 above.
Its amazing how many people talk around the generation issue. It is simply the factor which, IMHO, always decides everything (local, national elections +, in particular, Brexit). Put simply, it is not WHERE you were born (where you come from) its WHEN you were born that is so important in modern UK history.
Some say to be first in the UK lottery of life was to be born between 1927 (to young to fight in WW2) and around 1960 (to be working before the mass unemployment of the late 70s really kicked in). Of course, there is much more to it than that but clearly the baby-boomers increasingly are seen (with ample justification) as the ‘lucky generation’ and this is absolutely reflected in voting patterns (accumulation of wealth, a pining for the past, The Empire etc).
I’d go further than POINT 4 . If you take the entire UK working population aged between 18-65 (yep, that includes pretty much all police officers, nurses, doctors, teachers, parents of teenage children and younger etc) and analyse how they voted, I’m pretty certain that the ‘unelectable, anti-Semitic, neo-Marxist’ anti-economic zealot called Mr Jeremy Corbyn would have walked in to Downing Street as our PM on Dec 12th as head of the largest party in a hung Parliament a t the very least. If that is true, what does that say about where the real force of power lies in this country, given a virtual landslide Conservative majority?
I won’t bang on — but I would just wager one small thing. If you are of the gambling persuasion (…), I would humbly advise you to not to have a punt on nice Mr Johnson and Mr Gove getting on with lowering the voting age in the 2024 general election to 16…..
[Post edited 23 Jan 2020 11:05]
1
Emily Thornberry interview on Andrew Neil earlier. on 11:07 - Jan 23 with 1078 views
Emily Thornberry interview on Andrew Neil earlier. on 10:51 - Jan 23 by stevec
Sensible argument except the averagely and lower paid simply don't believe any Labour Government when they say they'll only tax the rich.
The proof was in the puddin'. The last period of Labour Government saw those peoples pensions literally stolen from them by Gordon Brown, ask ANYBODY on a privately self funded pension, and the personal allowance (the bit you earn before you pay tax) held so low for so long that it became a huge tax burden on the poorest in working society.
The Tories had the good sense (finally) to set up work pensions for all employees, this one of those rare long term plans that does no immediate favours for them politically but will help younger employees no end when they eventually reach pension age.
They've also shifted the personal allowance from circa £5,500 under Labour to nigh on £12500 now, a huge help for those on low and average pay.
Also, I love this term '...those able to were prepared to pay more tax to properly fund public services'. Exactly who are these people who can afford to pay more tax?
Let's leave aside for a moment those who earn in excess of £100k, they are so few in number and pay a fair amount of tax already so any further workable sum you could extract would be like pissing in the wind as far as making any difference to the deficit in public services.
So that leaves everybody on less than 100k.
This forum has a broad spectrum of earners, I would guess. So who on here reckons they've got far too much disposable income, far more than they need to look after themselves, their family, pay the mortgage, the bills etc etc. If you're one of these people, how much income have you got burning a hole in your pocket that you can hand over to provide further aid to public services, money you literally don't need. And how much?
Truth is, I think you'll find there aren't many. If any.
Also, I love this term '...those able to were prepared to pay more tax to properly fund public services'. Exactly who are these people who can afford to pay more tax?
I guess it all depends what you value/want. My wife and I earned £100k between us in London, and would happily have paid another 5% in Income tax if it meant properly funded public services. That would obviously have meant less disposable income/savings (Arf!), but I'd happily trade that for not walking past people sleeping on the streets, schools begging for financial help, and my father-in-law spending the best part of a day on a trolley in a hospital corridor with his 75 year wife having to sit on the floor, whilst they waited to be seen.
Fulham FC: It's the taking part that counts
4
Emily Thornberry interview on Andrew Neil earlier. on 11:19 - Jan 23 with 1041 views
Emily Thornberry interview on Andrew Neil earlier. on 21:45 - Jan 22 by Miss_Terraces
Andy Burnham was all set to lead the party and then hopefully the country. Enter momentum and the labour party and this country have both seriously suffered.
Except that wasn't what happened, given momentum was founded a month after Corbyn won the leadership election.
What happened was Harriet Harman instructed everyone to abstain on the Welfare Bill to try and make Burnham look too far compared to Yvette Cooper's austerity support "sensible" benefit, Harman's preferred candidate. But Burnham then also abstained. The membership were absolutely incensed, and as Corbyn was the only one who voted against - he went from aiming for 15% of the vote as success, to front runner in a matter of days.
1
Emily Thornberry interview on Andrew Neil earlier. on 11:48 - Jan 23 with 990 views
I agree with others than Nandy and Starmer are the best of the candidates, and whether you like Labour or not, we are in dire need of decent opposition.
For me Starmer is the one ready for Leadership now, Nandy is a future leader once a bit more experience under her belt.
Thornberry does come across as cantankerous on a regular basis, but I don't actually mind that too much, and see it as a sort of justifiable frustration.
The main problem with her becoming leader would be her total inability to represent a middle ground on Brexit, which somehow has to be done for Labour to stand a chance at the next elections - constituencies who leant the Tories their vote may decide by then that the policies they've been living under aren't working, but I see it as far less likely that they would go back in large numbers and say Brexit was a bad idea - too many moving parts and too much gone into it for that to be a broad movement.
0
Emily Thornberry interview on Andrew Neil earlier. on 12:12 - Jan 23 with 944 views
Emily Thornberry interview on Andrew Neil earlier. on 11:07 - Jan 23 by Konk
Also, I love this term '...those able to were prepared to pay more tax to properly fund public services'. Exactly who are these people who can afford to pay more tax?
I guess it all depends what you value/want. My wife and I earned £100k between us in London, and would happily have paid another 5% in Income tax if it meant properly funded public services. That would obviously have meant less disposable income/savings (Arf!), but I'd happily trade that for not walking past people sleeping on the streets, schools begging for financial help, and my father-in-law spending the best part of a day on a trolley in a hospital corridor with his 75 year wife having to sit on the floor, whilst they waited to be seen.
Well that's fair comment, and only you so far.
That said, there was nothing to stop you donating that 5% to those causes.
I'm guessing, while we're being honest here, that you didn't. And I'd also wager the reason you didn't is you and your wife probably worked out that whilst you could afford it at that time there was a reasonable chance that things may not always stay so rosy and you might need that 5 grand for, I don't know, cost of living going forward, potential unemployment, change of circumstances, kids etc etc.
And you'd both be 100% right not to give up that 5%, because those things happen to all of us at some point in time, and going back to the Public services and saying, things haven't quite worked out as we'd hoped and that 5k we gave you, any chance of us having it back, isn't going to wash. So you quite rightly hung onto it, because you and your wife rightly come before anything else.
And that is how all of us go about our lives, not knowing whether another Gordon Brown is going to pull the rug from under us.
As for your in laws, I hope they are okay but, trust me on this, the State will get more than it's pound of flesh back when age catches up on them. Hang on to every penny you've both got and if it's more than you need, give it to your next of kin as fast as you fckin well can.
1
Emily Thornberry interview on Andrew Neil earlier. on 12:34 - Jan 23 with 903 views
Emily Thornberry interview on Andrew Neil earlier. on 12:12 - Jan 23 by stevec
Well that's fair comment, and only you so far.
That said, there was nothing to stop you donating that 5% to those causes.
I'm guessing, while we're being honest here, that you didn't. And I'd also wager the reason you didn't is you and your wife probably worked out that whilst you could afford it at that time there was a reasonable chance that things may not always stay so rosy and you might need that 5 grand for, I don't know, cost of living going forward, potential unemployment, change of circumstances, kids etc etc.
And you'd both be 100% right not to give up that 5%, because those things happen to all of us at some point in time, and going back to the Public services and saying, things haven't quite worked out as we'd hoped and that 5k we gave you, any chance of us having it back, isn't going to wash. So you quite rightly hung onto it, because you and your wife rightly come before anything else.
And that is how all of us go about our lives, not knowing whether another Gordon Brown is going to pull the rug from under us.
As for your in laws, I hope they are okay but, trust me on this, the State will get more than it's pound of flesh back when age catches up on them. Hang on to every penny you've both got and if it's more than you need, give it to your next of kin as fast as you fckin well can.
Haven't got time to properly get into this - I'm working through my lunch hour - but calling schools and hospitals "causes" tells its own story.
Agree with Konk, I'd pay more for proper social infrastructure, and at least a bit of that is down to self-interest as much as pie-in-the-sky snowflakery. For one things, like a lot of people in their 30s and 40s I've got kids in creaking, under-funded state schools, and I could afford a 5% tax increase whereas I couldn't afford private education.
But another generation's priorities have won the day. Again, that's where we're at now.
Personally, I don't think reducing everything to the relationship between businesses and customers - i.e. I use *this* and not *that* so I'm not paying for *that* - is a healthy way to run a whole country, where lots of "customers" (children, for one) depend on others to pay into the pot.
But fair play Steve, at least you set out the argument honestly as being about economic self interest. Better that than dressing it up as being about the poor presentational skills of a woman with no chance of leading a party with, as things stand, no chance of winning power.
Anyway, back to work...
2
Emily Thornberry interview on Andrew Neil earlier. on 13:06 - Jan 23 with 813 views
Emily Thornberry interview on Andrew Neil earlier. on 12:12 - Jan 23 by stevec
Well that's fair comment, and only you so far.
That said, there was nothing to stop you donating that 5% to those causes.
I'm guessing, while we're being honest here, that you didn't. And I'd also wager the reason you didn't is you and your wife probably worked out that whilst you could afford it at that time there was a reasonable chance that things may not always stay so rosy and you might need that 5 grand for, I don't know, cost of living going forward, potential unemployment, change of circumstances, kids etc etc.
And you'd both be 100% right not to give up that 5%, because those things happen to all of us at some point in time, and going back to the Public services and saying, things haven't quite worked out as we'd hoped and that 5k we gave you, any chance of us having it back, isn't going to wash. So you quite rightly hung onto it, because you and your wife rightly come before anything else.
And that is how all of us go about our lives, not knowing whether another Gordon Brown is going to pull the rug from under us.
As for your in laws, I hope they are okay but, trust me on this, the State will get more than it's pound of flesh back when age catches up on them. Hang on to every penny you've both got and if it's more than you need, give it to your next of kin as fast as you fckin well can.
Can't talk for Konk but his answer could well be that there's no point in just him paying his 5%. It needs to be a decent number of people to make a difference. Obviously Jacob Rees Mogg could pay any corporation tax at all on his £700 million profit rather than base it in a tax haven and that would make a decent wedge more than Konk's 5%. But in general we need a critical mass of people paying and that's why we have a taxation system rather than a charitable programme.
I'm more than happy to pay my share but it really pisses me off that the Phillip Greens and Rees Moggs of this world who both have more than they could ever possibly spend in theirs or their children's lifetimes, still don't even want to pay the same as ordinary people. But that aside, I'd still rather pay more, like Konk, but there has to be enough people willing to do that, and vote for that, otherwise my 5% would be a drop in the ocean, not a contribution to real change.
3
Emily Thornberry interview on Andrew Neil earlier. on 13:12 - Jan 23 with 794 views
I am a Labour party member and will be backing Lisa Nandy. I was not a big Corbynite and being Jewish I got into arguments with people who turned away from Labour due to anti-antisemitism. The trouble with the Labour party is there are some loonies out there on the far left and in momentum but then the Tory party also has a scary extreme fringe which seems to be advising the Prime Minster now.
0
Emily Thornberry interview on Andrew Neil earlier. on 13:30 - Jan 23 with 750 views
Emily Thornberry interview on Andrew Neil earlier. on 13:06 - Jan 23 by nix
Can't talk for Konk but his answer could well be that there's no point in just him paying his 5%. It needs to be a decent number of people to make a difference. Obviously Jacob Rees Mogg could pay any corporation tax at all on his £700 million profit rather than base it in a tax haven and that would make a decent wedge more than Konk's 5%. But in general we need a critical mass of people paying and that's why we have a taxation system rather than a charitable programme.
I'm more than happy to pay my share but it really pisses me off that the Phillip Greens and Rees Moggs of this world who both have more than they could ever possibly spend in theirs or their children's lifetimes, still don't even want to pay the same as ordinary people. But that aside, I'd still rather pay more, like Konk, but there has to be enough people willing to do that, and vote for that, otherwise my 5% would be a drop in the ocean, not a contribution to real change.
"I'm more than happy to pay my share but it really pisses me off that the Phillip Greens and Rees Moggs of this world who both have more than they could ever possibly spend in theirs or their children's lifetimes, still don't even want to pay the same as ordinary people."
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
