parapauk said:Big jump there. The problem is that it is very easy to give the rich money in the form of tax cut, but very hard to take it away from them again. Some work has been done around the edges, but not enough. Regarding champagne socialism, I'm afraid the true measure of one is a rich person who supports XYZ social cause in public, then in private pays an accountant to avoid paying rax and stash's their money off-shore. Someone who is rich and believes in the social good and pays their dues without such hypocrisy is not a champagne socialist.Oil_Slick said:parapauk said:Indeed, far too well.Oil_Slick said:parapauk said:I like the way you stopped the bold at the point at which the reason why the money was being borrowed and things sold - never mind though, details were never your strong point.Oil_Slick said:[
Never fear! New Liebours apologist in Chief is here!
You mean like Gordon fully intendeds to do?
Tell us paperpuke, why is New Liebour so beloved of the very rich and the glitterati, could it be that Liebour has done very well bey them over the ;ast 12 years?
SO you support a party that by your own admission has been very helpful financially to the very wealthy ?
At last, you admit they are nothing but a bunch of Champagne Socialists.