Labour promised not to raise taxes on working people, but no one can define what that actually means, says Nana Akua
WATCH NOW: Nana Akua weighs in on the Labour Party's definition of a working person
GB News
I've got a question for you - who had their parliamentary credit card suspended because they owed more than £4,000 in unauthorised payments, and was described by one of her colleagues as having a reputation for being useless?
Ah yes, you guessed it. Our Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, who between herself and Sir Keir Starmer have literally made it a virtue of making themselves deeply unpopular.
They promised not to raise taxes on working people only, but no one appears to be able to define just what that actually means.
They're not answering the question, and it's laughable. The definition seems to be getting narrower.
Nana Akua weighs in on Labour's struggle to define a working person
GB News
And in any case, who made them the arbiters for where the parameters begin and end in what makes someone a working person.
This takes me back to Keir's inability to define a woman, and whether one can have a penis or not.
If somebody would have told you that that would be a question or an issue ten years ago, you'd have laughed at them. You would have laughed in their face.
Oh, dear. The Labour Party are quite quickly finding out that the guff that they spouted in opposition, which went largely unchallenged by many in the established media, doesn't work when you're in power.
And whilst GB News has challenged narratives from all parties throughout, Keir Starmer, in my view, was given the green light by most of the other broadcasters.
But at least on this matter, we are united in our confusion.
Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves promised not to raise taxes on working people.
But what constitutes as a working person? Am I one? And somebody, finally tell Keir Starmer that nobody writes cheques anymore.
You may like
