I am not objective on the non-dom rule. Having worked to get rid of it for eight years it would be ludicrous of me to say I was. But this series of tweets from ITN's Tom Bradby is from someone who is no great friend of Labour, I'd say:
He is right: the non-dom rule is indefensible. Even trying will have cost the Tories votes.
And increased the chance of it going - which matters to me.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Wow – who would have thought that?
Your representative Richard Murphy is an idiot who is plainly just against anyone who has any money and want to penalise them any way he can he does not understand this non DPM situation at all. Please stop him from speaking on tv about this and all tax matters as he’s clearly a dimwit.
Since when did you become National Censor, with the right to decide what people are allowed to say, and who can say it?
Kevin ,
Did your boss George ask you to write such a cogent and well thought through argument?
Best wishes,
Paul
Just watching BBC 10 o’clock news trying tis best to rubbish the Labour policy. Balls’ statement was surely that if the tax was abolished without any consideration it might lose money but that is not the policy. Then the BBC trot out a tax lawyer and the idea is presented that it might not result in any more tax take. Nothing about the point you made on RT about a more level playing field.
I was really annoyed with that broadcast
And with the lawyer – Emma Chamberlain – who I know and if whom I would have expected better
She had no basis at all for saying what she did
It was very biased