There are no insults in my post, just observations, opinions and questions, which we are all entitled to. If you disagree with my interpretation, that's fine. Questioning the credibility of my points is also fine, when countered with facts. But what I am not going to do is be bounced into a different debate because you don't agree with my points but can't or won't articulate why, so want to shift the discussion as a distraction from that.
Perhaps you can see and agree (or debate) that developing a technology programme, be it around space or something else, means that future growth and prosperity that will benefit the country and its population is more likely to happen, and be sustainable, than not investing in those areas. It's what the now developed world has done; should that choice not be available to the less developed countries?
It's clearly working as India is the fastest growing major economy in the world. It's poverty rate is also declining rapidly (down by more than 50% in 10 years) precisely because of Government programmes, so I am not sure why you are of the opinion that it isn't. Perhaps you know something the World Bank doesn't?
Maybe you are right. Maybe India doesn't need Mrs Sunak's tax as much as we do. But I think their need is greater, and I think the impact it will have on improving the life of the average Indian is much more than it will have by going into HMRCs coffers to assuage some faux political outrage whipped up to attack Rishi.
Let's be honest, it really wouldn't be difficult for Labour to target the Tories by focussing on policy, but for some reason they, like politicians of all colours would rather attack individuals than have a facts based debate. Which is what's repeated here. I blame Tony and the culture of spin for the collapse of trust in politicians and the decline in our political landscape ;)
Using legitimate tax planning tools to reduce ones tax is absolutely fine. Calling them loopholes is akin to calling pension contributions a loophole - actually a legitimate tax avoidance technique. Tax evasion by manipulating thing so that you don't pay the correct level of CGT, or benefit from RTB discounts that should be repaid because the property wasn't actually where you lived is not fine.
The allegations made against Angela are clear, and easily and quickly refutable if not true. In 2007 she purchased a property under RTB with a discount. In 2010 she got married, registered her children to her husbands address, stayed on the electoral role at her own address, her brother moved to her address, and in 2010 she sold the property, So assuming that the rental income from her brother has had the appropriate amount of tax paid, the CGT was declared in the relevant year and the appropriate amount of discount repaid (as she doesn't appear to have lived there for the necessary 5 years) to the council then there's nothing to see here.