The rubbish spoken about "squeeze the rich"

Spare a thought for John Humprhys. On Today, he has to play devil's advocate. He has to earn his salt. It's not his fault that he ends up sounding like a whining school boy who's had his sweets taken away from him. It's not his fault he ends up making Alastair Darling sound reasonable.

This morning he asked Darling "exactly" when growth would restart. What a damned stupid question. Who does Humprhys think the Chancellor is? God?

At several points, as Humprhys bemoaned the economic situation, I was willing Darling to reply "Well John, s*** happens, doesn't it?" It would have been the honest answer.

This stuff about returning to old Labour is just utter, hysterical nonsense. Even the Daily Mail demonstrates that, while attempting to make the opposite point:

Denis Healey, the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, increased the higher rate of tax on incomes of £20,000 and above to 83 per cent in 1975. Those earning more than £8,000 a year paid 60 per cent.
On top of that, there was a special 15 per cent surcharge for 'unearned income'. So anyone living on a pension or savings was taxed at up to 98p in the pound.

Against that, 45% for those earning over £12,500 per month or about seven times the national average, is hardly "squeezing the rich"! (Especially when the VAT cut of 2.5 points, such as is, will be more likely to benefit those with plenty of money, rather than average earners)

Come off it!