Jeremy Corbyn interview with Andrew Neil

I would imagine not lemongrove

For all that he irritates me at times James O'Brien is the only one I ever (if infrequently) listen to on LBC, couldn't stomach any of those in your list varian . Surely it will have to impact on Johnson if he doesn't do the Neil interview? I can see why he'd rather not, because even with benign questions he'd bumble and fumble his way through. Neil couldn't just sit there and let him blatantly lie without challenge.

Sometimes investigative journalism does get it wrong. But that doesn't mean that it shouldn't happen because, with eg phone hacking they were right, and they had to pursue that.

James O'Brien managed - almost single-handedly - to create credibility for Carl Beech's fantasy allegations by repeatedly and uncritically inviting Mark Watts of Exaro News onto his LBC programme to talk about them.

Thanks annep however skwawkbox hasn’t been the most reliable source of info in the past!

Only reference I can find

skwawkbox.org/2019/11/27/breaking-bbc-lied-to-labour-about-johnson-chickening-out-to-secure-corbyns-neil-interview/

I still haven’t seen a news item that says Johnson isn’t going to be interviewed by Neil, where did you find it?
On the one hand posters say that Johnson is too scared to do it, and others say that Neil is a friend of his.......it can’t be both.
If he was a friend then Johnson would do the interview.

James O'Brien is a talk show host with LBC which, unlike the BBC, is not obliged by law to be politically neutral.

Other LBC hosts are, or have been, blatant Brexitories Iain Dale, Nick Ferrari, Julia Hartley-Brewer, Andrew Castle, Nigel Farage, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Katie Hopkins.

Wow - Labaik- had never seen this quote. thanks.

I certainly hope so Callistemon - and it is a total disgrace, again, of the BBC to have lied to the others that Johnson would be interviewed too- when they had not agreed a date with him.

At least O'Brien doesn't pretend to be impartial...

Yes, jura but this could prove to be an own goal by Boris.

Don't like Andrew Neil, but James O'Brien? He who has never been wrong about anything, ever, in his entire life? I actually agree with him (JO) on lots of areas but he drives me crazy with his absolute arrogance that his view is the only one, even while I'm agreeing with him!!

This is what James O'Brien tweeted about Neil in 2018; I don't suppose anything has changed since then... ”If [Andrew Neil], who publishes Nazi apologists, racists, climate change deniers, homophobes, misogynists & disaster capitalists in the Spectator, is considered impartial enough to present BBC political programmes, it’s unsurprising that his pocket fascists frequently appear on them.”

turns out the BBC lied to Corbyn and others- who were told that Johnson had also agreed to be interviewed by Andrew Neil.

Again, the BBC shows how biased it is in this campaign. I don't think I will be paying my TV licence next year- appalling.

MaizieD
I refer to the answers given by my honourable wotsits above...
OK I admit when I met Andrew Neil in the 1980s I thought I'd rather die than work for him (thank goodness I didn't) but now I see him as a bit of a national treasure, never thought I'd come to that!
and why do I think Labour will exceed the taxation plans of their manifesto?
because...that's what they do, I'm afraid. Not just them; Cameron popped a bunch of policies into his programme which had not been in the manifesto.

railman:
Well as a self-employed person with a journalist husband we are clearly getting it wrong - we can't even claim our newspaper subscriptions even though it's impossible for my husband to work without reading them...apparently not relevant.
I've watched the Corbyn interview again and I've got to say the most worrying part of it is where he doesn't seem to understand the link between government bonds and borrowing. The rest you can blame on Andrew Neil if you like but WTF???

the current choice by Johnson not to appear in interview with Andrew Neil and be savaged- truly means none of his supporters have any right to criticise those who have agreed to be interviewed. End of.

newnanny - that link is to the "Daily Express", so I wouldn't pay too much attention to it, especially since their data seems to come from research done at Conservative Central Office.

Hardly an independent or authoritative source.

There is of course the proposed FTT that has been put forward by the EU, and even Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_financial_transaction_tax) had a fair amount to say on it:
Particularly the UK government has expressed strong views about the negative impact of the tax and is expected to use its power of veto to block the implementation of this proposal, unless the tax was to be introduced globally. The likelihood of a global FTT is low due to opposition from the United States.

That opposition may in part be due to the fact that the UK economy is more than 70% dependent for income on financial services. Most SME's transactions were out of scope of the EU transaction tax, but a lot of the activities of non-traditional banking, maybe hedge fund managers' activities were included.
This little presentation gives an overview - ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/resources/documents/taxation/other_taxes/financial_sector/ftt_under_ec_en.pdf
but I'm uncertain how the "Daily Express" / Conservative Party Central Office have established their claims about this "damage" from the Labour policy.

Dinahmo - love it, excellent post. I especially liked this para.
It should not be forgotten that the self employed and company directors do receive certain benefits. For example, if the base of operations (as it often is) is one's home address then travel between home and place of work is tax deductible. The daily newspaper is tax deductible too. One needs to read the business pages.

That is so true - I have heard of many self-employed and SME's who claim for DVD players/recorders, and even horses - and these are journalists/writers/reporters. Many subscriptions to industry journals are tax deductible, as part of the cost of sales of your work - be it an article for a magazine, a book, or a documentary about the different ways to travel by rail around say Europe.

If Corporation Tax for SME's is increased to a more normal level of 26%, I wouldn't see that as a negative impact on business - since all these claims to offset against tax are perfectly legitimate. Unless of course the 'business' doesn't have a grip on its accounting practices.

MaizieD...wrong! Corbyn has admitted that people will lose money (not just those with earnings over £80,000 as claimed)
But those who have the married tax allowance ( many) and those who have state pensions and dividends and may only have £14,000 a year as well.

sarahcyn ...what an excellent post.??

RE taxation of small business:

Some years ago when the CT rate was reduced to 19% it became beneficial for sole traders to form their business into a limited company. They then paid themselves a small salary which was slightly over the Class 1 NIC limit so that they retained their benefits in future years. Typically the salary would be between £8,000 and £9,000. The company would have had a small liability to employer's contributions.

They then took dividends out of the company profits after taxation. Up until 2015/16 there was a tax credit of 1/9 of the dividend which was refundable, if the taxpayer's income was less than the PA.

The government got wise to this and changed the system w.e.f 2016/17 when they introduced the Dividend Allowance of £5000 pa. This has been reduced to £2000 pa w.e.f. 2018/19. For dividend income in excess of the allowance, the rate of tax is 7.5% for those in BR band.

AN referred to the amount of tax that people earning £14,000 would pay. Under the current rules, if the taxpayer has £2000 of dividend income and the remainder is salary or pension they won't pay any tax because the Dividend Allowance of £2000 plus the PA of £12,500 exceeds the £14,000 total income. If, as some people believe, the Dividend Allowance is reduced to £1000 they would pay tax on £500 dividends.

It should not be forgotten that the self employed and company directors do receive certain benefits. For example, if the base of operations (as it often is) is one's home address then travel between home and place of work is tax deductible. The daily newspaper is tax deductible too. One needs to read the business pages. Compare this with those employees who are paying huge sums to commute to work plus the cost of their daily paper.

@MazieD I just saw the interview this morning as I had taped it. The additional tax on pensions is because Corbyn is introducing a transaction tax which will hit all financial transactions such as on pensions.

www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1209554/Election-news-poll-latest-Labour-Party-Jeremy-Corbyn-pension-policy-Boris-Johnson

It is strange because he seems to be giving away a lot and the cost is astronomical yet he is gaining some money back by bringing in new taxes.

I just worry with billions and billions of extra borrowing it will push the tax burden on to our children and grandchildren for years to come. It is unfair to do this in my opinion. Each generation should pay for its own deficit through taxation. So not to pass on nightmare levels of debt to the next generation.

MaizieD - your comment about Neil's question - or non-question on taxation - is clearly a reflection of his accurately researched information.

This is classic, let's not bother with details approach, let's pluck random numbers out of the air, and with an air of condescending gravitas make an assertion for which we have scant evidence.

It would be like suggesting that if income tax (basic rate) was raised to say 21%, then the average household would be £1,000 a year worse off. (Oh wait, I've just increased the tax free allowance by £500, and the level at which we start to make Class 1 NI contributions - but we'll ignore those shall we, because £1,000 a year worse off looks better and is easier to write!)

Also sounds a bit like the 50,000 more new nurses claim - obviously that doesn't include the 18,000 nurses we already have, and we won't say whether we're recruiting 32,000 trained nurses, or whether we will need to train some over a 5 to 10 year period.

Sorry - liked your post - it does highlight so many inconsistencies in the 'election facts' we get bombarded withy daily.