Asked on Sky News whether “someone who works but gets their income from assets as well, such as shares and property” was a working person, he said: “Well, they wouldn’t come within my definition. I think people watching this will know whether they’re in that group or not.”
Sir Keir said his definition covered “those people who work hard and are anxious about whether they can make ends meet, and know that should something happen to them and their family they can’t write a cheque to get out of the problem”.
So, taking that strictly, anyone who hsa some savings – hell, an overdraft facility – on which they can write a cheque is not working class. So, you know, be afraid for the budget.
Welcome to Socialist Clown World, only slightly different from Tory Clown by virtue of an actual ideology.
These twats have not so much made a rod for their own backs as Rod Hull and Emu.
Otto,
And they’re supposed to be the grown ups.
Does paying for your own wife’s clothes classify as being a working man?
The main issue here is that he – and others in the government – have been stupid enough to be drawn into battle over exact but pointless definitions. Everyone knows that a Labour government would tend to tax the rich more, and distribute benefits to those at the bottom of the pile. They could have just left it at that: “We’ll do what we can to help the poorest, but others are going to feel some pain, etc…” But instead, he gets drawn into specifics over what a class is, and who exactly is going to pay what. That’s a massive hostage to fortune, as any slightest deviation is going to lead to a “Gotcha!” moment. And what makes it worse is that Mr. Forensic is the exact opposite of what we expect the sharp-witted barrister to be. He can think on his feet with all the nimble flexibility of a stone horse trough.
What TTK & Co mean buying “working people” is “our people” or more accurately their constituency of voters which largely excludes productively working people in the private sector and does include vast swathes of unproductive public sector workers and people living on benefits.
The fun thing from a man whose pension arrangements are covered by his own personal act of parliament is his attitude to savings and wealth. People who accumulate savings during their lifetime in order to pay for their retirement are wealthy (and to be fleeced, plucked and gouged) whereas those with disproportionately generous gold-plated public sector pensions are not wealthy because they don’t have to fund their retirement.
TTK’s pension will be paid for by taxes on the wealthy.
What is “a cheque”? TTK definitely in touch with reality.
Simon N @ 8.09, it’s more the case that politicians say things and people expect them to be able to explain exactly what they mean.
That TTK, as a ‘top’ lawyer, is struggling with this concept brings into question how good a lawyer he really is.
Working Class (Person) – someone who is employed by another (or sole trader) and is fleeced by the state to the extent they don’t have any capacity to absorb a financial shock.
Middle Class – someone who is employed by another and isn’t quite fleeced by the state to the extent they don’t have any capacity to absorb a financial shock (which means there is more to extort from them).
The Rich – Everyone else – doctors, judges, MPs, CEO of charities etc.
“What TTK & Co mean buying “working people” is “our people” or more accurately their constituency of voters which largely excludes productively working people in the private sector and does include vast swathes of unproductive public sector workers and people living on benefits.”
However quite a lot of those sucking on the State teat have managed to accumulate significant amounts of assets (maybe precisely because they are sucking on the State teat) so will fall foul of the taxes on ‘the rich’. A couple comprising a mid ranking NHS manager and a senior teacher may well have acquired a nice house, a buy to let and an ISA portfolio. They may be shocked to find they are now in Labour’s sights……
So, my Mum who is a pensioner and has liquidated her house in order to pay rent in her retirement home is not a “working person”. She’s to be targetted.
Human rights lawyers are the dregs of the legal profession in intellect, closely followed by employment lawyers. They deal in imprecise nebulous concepts where it’s all about feels and things that are subjective, can’t be defined or pinned down.
People who can’t cut it in real law.
TTK seems to be pretty thick and hugely unimpressive, despite past colleagues saying how bright and forensic he is – maybe he is but only by the very low standards of human rights law.
Decnine:
It’s what used to be called a check.
Jim:
Leftists governments in the west are going to do everything they can to see that the new taxes don’t fall on government-sector workers, since those are normally one of the most reliable voting blocs for the left.
What is “a cheque”? Come, come: I’ve already written one this year.
Adolf: He’s not a top lawyer. He hasn’t got it to stand up in the Central Criminal Court and do an Atticus Finch. He’s the guy sitting in a back room looking up all the precedents in Jarndyce v Jarndyce. When he became DPP then that org became similarly hidebound and moribund.
If you’ve watched those TV programmes following a real-life police investigation, you will have seen the crossed fingers when they send the case to the CPS and the delight when “CPS he say yes!” and they actually get to charge the scrote in question.
Sorry- Addolf! Bloody autocorrect!
TTK sees a pot of money, of whatever size, and says “I’ll be having that.”
Doesn’t matter whose.
Typical socialist. What’s yours is his.
“Leftists governments in the west are going to do everything they can to see that the new taxes don’t fall on government-sector workers, since those are normally one of the most reliable voting blocs for the left.”
They can make sure that direct taxes don’t fall on the public sector workers, in that they can exempt them from taxes on pension contributions, and exempt public sector employers from employers tax contributions etc etc, but they can’t exempt a public sector employee from direct taxes on income, capital gains, inheritance, or dividend income just because they work for the State, or from a tax on owning a second home or a buy to let property. And many public sector employees, particularly the senior ones approaching retirement will have built up significant assets outside of their public sector pension rights. For example I was told about someone recently whose wife works for the NHS, she’s taking early retirement at 55, getting a £100k lump sum and a £25k/yr index linked pension. That puts her slap bang in TTK’s ‘not a working person’ category. We’ve already seen the howls of pain from GPs here about some floated changes to pension taxes and caps on pensions assets etc. There’s a lot of public sector workers making £££ and they will have built up significant assets over the years. They won’t like being lumped in with the billionaires.
@ Ted S
It’s not that – the North-East of England used to be one of the most reliable vorint blocs for the left and Labour utterly screwed it over – it’s because the pubic sector unions provide more than half the Labour Party’s income.
@jgh – ” my Mum who is a pensioner and has liquidated her house in order to pay rent in her retirement home is not a “working person””.
Well, under the normal understanding of the term in English, she obviously is not a working person as she is retired. Neither is a person in a coma in hospital. Quite why it matters whether someone is working or not is a mystery. It’s almost as if fairness is irrelevant to our tax system.
The left is absolutely convinced that they can manage money better than individuals, so they want to take as much as possible so that they get to manage as much as possible. It’s not clear how they continue to have this belief in the face of all the evidence.