To the figure of £2,094. clairsaid clair said the permanent secretary signed it off, he says in a letter he hasn t that it s wrong. so it s a lie, isn t it? lie, isn t it? the reason it s generated lie, isn t it? the reason it s generated this lie, isn t it? the reason it s generated this discussion l lie, isn t it? the reason it s| generated this discussion is lie, isn t it? the reason it s - generated this discussion is there is some kernel of truth. but people are now asking whether it s 1000 or 3000 or are now asking whether it s1000 or 3000 or whatever it is, the factors that the conservatives have managed to the public to think about tax rises because ultimately government spending comes from somewhere. it s either coming from borrowing or through tax rises, and that s the key. they ve managed to get people to think about it, for so long in this campaign, so far, labour have managed to get away with dressing to conservatives that they are rubbish. now they are going to have
Hole is what they claim, and they have basically divided that by the number of working families in the country and come up with this figure, £2094. now, that is over a four year period, so about £500 a year. the prime minister said last night that this was the work of independent treasury officials. it is true to say that treasury did most of the sums, but political advisors who work for the chancellor were the ones who set the terms of the calculations by making assumptions about labour s policies. now over here, we can show you, this is the policy list the conservative party produced and how much it would allegedly cost. but not all of it has been costed by the treasury. these three at the bottom that have been highlighted there, they come from other documents. for example, this one, the green prosperity plan, comes from a labour policy document,
Two things apart because that £2000 tax rise kept hearing about that apparently labour has checked up his sleeve, what is at about? it comes from officialfigures. these are sleeve, what is at about? it comes from official figures. these are the official costings of the oppositions policy for the pair done by civil servants. but it s based on assumptions made by conservative advisors. some of those assumptions are a little bit, shall we say, questionable. some of those costings which over the course of the next parliament, over £38 billion which equates to £2094 per person is what they re saying. per equates to £2094 per person is what they re saying- they re saying. per house for that every household they re saying. per house for that every household had they re saying. per house for that every household had the - they re saying. per house for that every household had the same i they re saying. per house for that l every household had the same tax bill for the network comes fr
Last summer. a bad yearfor them is 300 quid on their utility bills and it cost no more to build than a standard house. we know how to fix this, but concentration of wealth is not part of that solution. bud concentration of wealth is not part of that solution. of that solution. and political will, the time of that solution. and political will, the time horizon - of that solution. and political will, the time horizon as i of that solution. and political| will, the time horizon as well. of that solution. and political- will, the time horizon as well. lord goldsmith resigned from the government recently because he said the government did not take this issue seriously enough. there are complaints of the opposition too about this. so, are people s flights on holiday this year, if they take a flight, are they wiping out all their good deeds at home? well, it s robabl their good deeds at home? well, it s probably 20% their good deeds at home? well, it s probably 20% to their good deeds
To take back, to the 150 volunteers we have, because to take back, to the 150 volunteers we have, because they to take back, to the 150 volunteers we have, because they should i to take back, to the 150 volunteers| we have, because they should have been we have, because they should have been there we have, because they should have been there we we have, because they should have been there. we want we have, because they should have been there. we want to we have, because they should have been there. we want to share i we have, because they should have been there. we want to share it- we have, because they should have. been there. we want to share it with then been there. we want to share it with them. . . :: , been there. we want to share it with them. .. :: , ., them. the fact 20% of the congregation them. the fact 20% of the congregation was - them. the fact 20% of the congregation was made i them. the fact 2094. of the | congregation was made up them. the fact 2094.