Oops - sorry. Read your post completely the wrong way.
Ok.What they said was that they would not increase NIC, and they said it both verbally and in their manifesto. The sentence in the manifesto was "Labour will not increase taxes on working people, which is why we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT."
What they now claim is that the part of the sentence "we will not increase National Insurance" meant "we will not increase Employees' National Insurance", and if only we had read the hidden subtext in the small print we would have understood that Employer's National Insurance does not count as National Insurance.
As for farming, here's the proof.
DEFRA secretary Steve Reed admits he U-turned on farm inheritance tax
The secretary of state in charge of rural affairs, Steve Reed, has admitted he has changed his stance on farm inheritance tax because of the "£22bn black hole left by the Tories". When he was shadow DEFRA secretary, Mr Reed told two farmers' conferences a year ago Labour had no plans to change...uk.news.yahoo.com
In what way?
It's in the same sentence / paragraph as an explanatory comment. It literally couldn't have been clearer.
Medicine is science, you won’t carry out a hysterectomy on a man, a woman won’t get prostate cancer. It’s straightforward.
Labour had very specifically told the farmers (prior to the issue of their manifesto) that IHT was not to be changed. They had/have every right to change their mind, but they could have, or should have, told the farmers of this. The silence on the matter in their manifesto does not, in this instance, make it all right. So in this case, your reference to the wording of the manifesto is, in my view, clutching at straws to protect a poor action by Reeve.
The additional legal aid budget is to try to clear the backlog. It will actually save money, as it'll mean that asylum-seekers' claims can be processed much more quickly, and the individuals concerned will either have their claim granted (and be able to seek work, live independently etc - no longer requiring to housed in hotels) OR their claim will be denied and (if they have arrived from a safe country, they can be returned). Having worked as a volunteer case officer last year, I can assure you that the system run under the previous government was truly f*cked, with tens of thousands of asylum-seekers with good claims being unable to apply for asylum. It is virtually impossible to navigate your way through the asylum system if you don't have a specialised lawyer to help you, and when I was working as a case officer it was often impossible to find a single legal aid lawyer in the whole of the UK with any capacity at all to take on new cases. Thankfully the new government seems to be more focussed on solving the problem, rather than deliberately exacerbating it.
What have the left wing press reported?
The Morning Star?
Guardian, Daily Mirror. Arguably The Independent?
Sometimes you need to ignore whether the press is right wing or left wing and simply consider the underlying facts. Here’s how the EU and EIB operate.
search.app
I suspect like most people they don’t care about the technicals, they see chancers landing in Dover by the thousands, and understand that hard pressed taxpayers money is being spent to home, feed and support them.
