Corbyn's stance is now, in effect: "Make me Prime Minister or I'll let financially vulnerable families suffer the consequences of No Deal."
It's even worse than that. We could stop No Deal and then have a General Election in which Corbyn could seek the consent of voters to be PM. But that's not good enough for him. He is insisting on being made PM without a General Election - or struggling families get it.
And this is pure invention. If the Govt loses a vote of confidence, the next PM is the person able to win a confidence vote in the Commons - or you have a general election. There is no rule - none at all - that the leader of the Opposition becomes PM.
Only three weeks ago Corbyn was suggesting Johnson's Premiership was illegitimate because: "The People of our country should decide who becomes Prime Minister in a General Election."
Yet now he insists he be made PM without one.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Labour caving to some of the richest people in the country - whilst raising the tax burden on employing the low paid - has been described as the "lobbying coup of the decade."
But how bad is it? 🧵
Well, we know that Labour promised to raise £565m per annum from taxing private equity properly. But, after lobbying, agreed only to raise 14% of that or £80m.
But in fact, it's worse that that (or better, if you are amongst that mega rich class).
For a particular type of carried interest Labour actually proposes to *cut* tax rates...
Three reasons why inheritance tax on farmland is a good thing (beyond the obvious - that it will raise money). 🧵
First, farmland being subject to inheritance tax will reduce the value it has as a token to pass wealth down tax free between generations, so that farmland is cheaper and farming more profitable.
Second, farmland being subject to inheritance tax will reduce the number of people who hold it as a token to pass wealth down tax free between generations so it is instead held by people who hold it to farm it so it is more efficiently used.
I see my tweets about the effects of Wes Streeting's ban on puberty blockers on younger trans people have been criticised by the DHSC’s adviser on suicides. 🧵
1. What is undoubtedly true is that Victoria Atkins was warned by her own civil servants about the ban on puberty blockers posing “a high risk of self-harm and suicide” and Wes Streeting followed his predecessor in ignoring that advice.
2. Before publishing my thread (below) we went to the Tavistock and Portman with these numbers for a response. Other journalists went to NHS England for a response. Neither denied the numbers and both declined to comment.
Medically, not much will change. The NHS has not prescribed PBs for years. And now families will travel abroad to collect the drugs they know their children need. Streeting can make it less safe for everyone, and impose huge sacrifices on poorer families, but he cannot stop this.
Politically, I can't recall ever feeling this depressed. When the Tories did this cruel ideological act there was hope, for they would soon be out. Now Streeting is doing worse and it feels like there is none. Personally I am finding it *very* hard to assimilate this.
There are widespread rumours (and some evidence) of more to come and inferentially what Streeting is saying is that he will not engage with the trans community or listen to warnings from civil servants or the NHS and he will not engage with suicide data.
Second, given that the structure of the ban recognises the risks to of cutting off puberty blockers for those already prescribed them by the NHS, what steps have you taken to ensure those prescribed puberty blockers privately can continue to access them?