O/T - general election 2019

[WanChaiMiller]

So what you are saying is that you don't like the FT's analysis of Labour policies, because in reaching their conclusions they have taken account of Labour’s plan to seize 10% of all decent sized public companies. In other words you would prefer that they don't take account of a Labour policy when they analyse the impact of Labour policies? Right... I bet John McDonnell wished he had thought of that line.

No, we don't know what the impact of the 10% nationalisation of every UK public company with 250 or more employees will be. We can make reasoned arguments though, can't we? If a company doesn't particularly want to have 10% of it taken into state ownership (and why would it?), the options appear to be:

1. Not to be a UK company;
2. Not to be publically listed; or
2. Not to have 250 or more employees.

I assume that you would agree with that? None are great options for the UK economy and the prospect of quality jobs, are they?

So last year, when the Unilever board wanted to rebase the company in The Netherlands, the move was blocked by its shareholders. Do you think they would do that again knowing that if they remain in the UK then 10% of the company is going to McDonnell. I don't.

And what about pensions? Pension funds grow by taking the dividends paid out by the likes of Shell, Unliever, GSK, Aviva and BP. Well, if we don’t disregard the policy because it is inconvenient to our argument, we know that 10% of those dividends will be going into McDonnell’s pocket in the future don’t we. So where is the lost pension fund growth coming from?

I agree that Brexit is going to have a significant negative impact in the short to medium term, but what is the science behind your belief that ‘Brexit is a bigger problem than Labour’. Is it simply that is what you want to believe, and so ‘do a McDonnell’ and go into denial mode when faced with the reality of Labour policies?

I said it was a part reply as Im out so you will have to wait.

[WanChaiMiller]

Kerr. I'm out for the rest of the weekend. I then have a 10 day business trip abroad. I cant get on mm in some of the places I go. Just to let you know it may be a long wait. I hope I dont forget. Life eh, it gets in the way.

[animallittle3]

The IFS can't imagine an economic model different to the one we have so it's findings aren't facts but just plain ideology .

[Shark27]

I totally agree this is Corbyn plan but why would he make a soft deal then send it back to the people? As flour says. the people have spoken once. Get the deal done wether it's soft / hard or somewhere between and let's move on. What will happen if it's another close decision but this time for remain?. Will we have millions more spent on a third, fourth debate!
I'm like lots of other people. Were going to have to vote for someone we don't want to. And sadly Brexit will dominate the decision. ���� What a shtfest it is.

If Corbyn gets in we will probably end up voting to remain as the choice will be either a softer Brexit where we don't have a vote within the EU (pointless imo) or remain.

[animallittle3]

If Corbyn gets in we will probably end up voting to remain as the choice will be either a softer Brexit where we don't have a vote within the EU (pointless imo) or remain.

The problem that Corbyn faces is that the majority inside the Labour Party believe the EU is the solution and not the problem .

The majority of Labour voters believe the opposite and voted accordingly in the referendum .

He needed to be decisive one way or another and that is clearly hurting him with the electorate on both sides of the vote .

There comes a time as a leader when listening needs to end and action takes over and you live and die by it .

Doing not very much is the worst possible death in my opinion .

[Silly-miller]

It’s all a bunch of tosh anyway one party wanting to seize company’s by force or by borrowing billions of pounds and one party promising to leave EU but haven’t done so in 3 years.

Both promise changes but I doubt ether will deliver

Il be honest even if labour stood by the referendum and said we will leave one way or another and promised everything people wanted I still don’t think they will get in power without Scottish votes and with SNP around I doubt they will ever gain their support for along time.

I think the main issue with labour at the moment is they have gone from a socialist party who listens to people to corporate party that only listens to union and its labour members

Did you know labour has the most members having 485,000 if you add everyone who has a membership in other party’s it comes to under 850,000 with a voting population at 46.8 million (last known figure) that’s one voter in 55 that’s being listened too by one party or another.

[WanChaiMiller]

Kerr. Ive not got much time and just had a chance to actually read your post.

There is a 4th option, companies actually accept making employees shareholders (shakeholders) has a long term benefits and get on with it.

You asked me the science behind my view on brexit being more damaging than Labour taxation. Id ask you to give science behind your take that companies will automatically leave the UK given higher taxes. What I read from your post is speculation on your part.

[WanChaiMiller]

Kerr said to me "Thatcher’s policies didn’t kill off major industries as you assert."

In short, I think it did. The feature of the early 80s recession is that it hit mananufacturing harder than other sectors. Britain lost 20% of its manufacturing in 18 months.* Add in Thatchers policy of closing down coal and steel. The net result is many of our factories closed forever.

The reason the recession hit manufacture hardest was a triple whammy of the increase in interest rates (to squeeze money supply), a strong rise in the pound (due to North Sea Oil sales) and sharp fall off in domestic demand.

Manufacturers lost its export markets at the same time as being hit by cheap imports. Manufacturing output fell by a third through the recession. Agree it hit many lame ducks but killed off very many good ones too. "By April 1983, Britain, once known globally as the "workshop of the world" became a net importer of goods for the first time in modern times."

The first few years under Thatcher saw unemployment rise to 5m (the headline figure is 3m but adjusted taking into account youth unemployment) hitting the North hardest devastation towns and cities up here. Many are yet to recover.

The landscape of Britain changed. The recovery was in the South. Our reliance shifted from manufacture to the financial service sector in the City. Today, the South and South East are the only regions in Britain that have a nett surplus in tax revenue.

Thatchers introduction of neoliberal policy and her creation of the Single Market changed how we produce things and trade internationally.

The recovery in manufacturing post the Thatcher recession is built off the back of outsourcing globally, global integrated supply chains and free access to EU markets.

She attracted Japanese firms (Honda, Toyota, Nissan and more) to the UK on the promise of easy* access European Markets (see link to her Lancaster House speech where she launches her 'Europe is Open for Business' campaign in 1988).

Globalisation coupled with privatisation allowed foreign companies the chance to buy British companies losing it the UK.

Its pretty clear to me we lost much of our manufacturing industries as a direct result of Thatcher policy.

[WanChaiMiller]

1988 Apr 18 Margaret Thatcher
Speech opening Single Market Campaign

https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107219

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

Thatcher didn’t close down coal and steel. High wages closed them.

Thatcher just happened be the one with enough balls to do something about it.