O/T Corbyn will eclipse Rotherham's record losing streak

[KerrAvon]

Not commenting further but here are some stats along the lines that Jones' discusses in his book, It may be of interest to the posters who are saying that to vote for Corbyn would be to go back to the bad old days of the taxpayers funding failing nationalised industries:

Total public (taxpayer) money given out each year to private companies : £93billionn pounds

This consists of:

• Subsidies and grants: £14.5bn This includes cash to the train operators to run services, subsidies to defence firms and grants to businesses to induce them to invest.

• Corporate tax benefits: £44bn Of the 93 major tax reliefs provided by the Treasury, 27 are aimed at business. The largest amount was spent allowing businesses to write off billions spent on plants, machinery and equipment among other items.

* Subsidy to private investment £20bn The construction industry gained more than £7bn in exemptions on new housing and land duty.

• Hidden transport subsidies: £15bn Unlike motorists and the petrol levies they are charged, airlines do not pay tax on fuel – support worth about £8.5bn a year, according to MPs on parliament’s transport select committee. Train companies also enjoy lower duty on fuel.

• Energy subsidies: £3.8bn Most public handouts to energy firms are not widely acknowledged, according to a recent House of Commons environmental audit committee report. It said: “The variation in definitions of subsidy allows the government to resist acknowledging subsidy in many areas.” Yet the dismantling of Britain’s nuclear power stations cost the public £2.3bn in 2012-13 alone.

• Insurance, advice and advocacy services: £406m Includes such ***** services as the state’s insurance scheme for trading abroad – the export credit guarantee – of which the defence firm BAE Systems says: “Many of our customers require it.” It also includes government trade advisers and overseas business networks.

• Government procurement from the private sector: £15bn Capita, Atos, G4S and Serco alone received £4bn worth of public-sector contracts in 2012-13. While procurement provides the public with services, it is not always about securing value for money for taxpayers, as the business secretary at the time, Vince Cable, acknowledged in 2012. He said: “There is a role for the government using procurement in a more strategic way.”

This was based on government accounts from 2012-13, the last set of accounts there are.No doubt this will be a lot higher in the years since.

Just as a comparison on the significance of these figures: the total amount we paid in year for the NHS is approx £100 billion.

We are paying just about as much on funding private companies to run public services as we are spending on our NHS.

Just sayin'

As a way of co

So does Labour propose to end any of the above? Are they going to scrap the tax allowances that encourage businesses to invest, innovate and grow? Are they proposing to end subsidies to airlines and rail companies so as to cause fares to rise for all? Are they going to end the export credit guarantees that allow businesses to export more easily?

I think we should be told as it may well influence how some of us would vote.

[KerrAvon]

And this is one example of why the powers that be are sh;t scared of Corbyn and rubbish him at every opportunity. Corbyn threatens to run the gravy train for the privileged few off the rails. They won't let him do that.

If Corbyn had as equal and as fair coverage as May it would be a much closer contest.

https://www.thecanary.co/section/uk/

It's good to see that you are committed to equal and fair coverage with that link, Redshank. That site is a model of objectivity and balance.

[KerrAvon]

Totally agree, and like i said, the sheeple will in all likelyhood vote this shower in again, and get thoroughly shafted over the next few years....

I've yet to see a positive post from the 'tories' on here regarding what and why they're voting for the vile two hats....all they can do, and all the tory party and their media supporters can do, is slag Corbyn....

It's interesting, but kind of sad and inevitable that the arguments on threads like this become so polarised.

I'm not a supporter of any party. I think I've voted for every one of the main parties since my first General Election in 1983 and haven't finally decided where I will vote this time round (not that it would make much difference in a constituency where the sitting MP had a majority in excess of 20000 in 2005), but I'll happily tell you why I think the 'sheeple' as you put it will favour May over Corbyn.

Corbyn and his followers have created a narrative where business is 'bad'. That is clear from some of the posts on here as well as some of the sound bites coming from their campaign. They have gleefully seized on examples like Mike Ashley and, in essence, portray all bosses as fats cats and propose that the businesses that the fats cats operate are things to be taxed to the hilt.

The Corbyn position is absurd. Of course there are excesses in business (just as there are in the Trades Unions), but it is business that is the economic life blood of the country. It’s business that provides employment, innovates, enables the trade that creates wealth and pays taxes. It’s something to be cherished and supported, not castigated as per Corbyn and chums.

Labour is proposing to spend on some things that we all (including out and out Tories) consider desirable such as education and health, but is proposing to significantly hike business taxes to do that and uses the ‘business is bad’ dog whistle to partially justify that.

The facts is that over taxing business will merely encourage some business and some of the jobs and the taxes they pay to leave the country (as examples, both Unliever and HSBC have considered rebasing out of the UK in recent times). Of the companies that would remain in the UK, over taxation would reduce their willingness and ability to invest so as to innovate and create new jobs and, of course, reduced profits and dividends would harm institutional investors – notably the pension providers that many people rely upon.

The Corbyn Labour approach is incredibly short sighted. It’s a classic example of killing the golden goose. It’s no coincidence that Labour was only really seen as electable when Blair pursued what were seen as being business friendly policies.

May will be elected because she is not seen as being anti-business, with many of the electorate being able to see thorugh the smoke screen and make the connection between thriving business and a thriving country that provides a degree of wealth for all.

[millmoormagic]

It's interesting, but kind of sad and inevitable that the arguments on threads like this become so polarised.

I'm not a supporter of any party. I think I've voted for every one of the main parties since my first General Election in 1983 and haven't finally decided where I will vote this time round (not that it would make much difference in a constituency where the sitting MP had a majority in excess of 20000 in 2005), but I'll happily tell you why I think the 'sheeple' as you put it will favour May over Corbyn.

Corbyn and his followers have created a narrative where business is 'bad'. That is clear from some of the posts on here as well as some of the sound bites coming from their campaign. They have gleefully seized on examples like Mike Ashley and, in essence, portray all bosses as fats cats and propose that the businesses that the fats cats operate are things to be taxed to the hilt.

The Corbyn position is absurd. Of course there are excesses in business (just as there are in the Trades Unions), but it is business that is the economic life blood of the country. It’s business that provides employment, innovates, enables the trade that creates wealth and pays taxes. It’s something to be cherished and supported, not castigated as per Corbyn and chums.

Labour is proposing to spend on some things that we all (including out and out Tories) consider desirable such as education and health, but is proposing to significantly hike business taxes to do that and uses the ‘business is bad’ dog whistle to partially justify that.

The facts is that over taxing business will merely encourage some business and some of the jobs and the taxes they pay to leave the country (as examples, both Unliever and HSBC have considered rebasing out of the UK in recent times). Of the companies that would remain in the UK, over taxation would reduce their willingness and ability to invest so as to innovate and create new jobs and, of course, reduced profits and dividends would harm institutional investors – notably the pension providers that many people rely upon.

The Corbyn Labour approach is incredibly short sighted. It’s a classic example of killing the golden goose. It’s no coincidence that Labour was only really seen as electable when Blair pursued what were seen as being business friendly policies.

May will be elected because she is not seen as being anti-business, with many of the electorate being able to see thorugh the smoke screen and make the connection between thriving business and a thriving country that provides a degree of wealth for all.

To be honest Kerr, you're the only one to put a bit of objectivity into this argument, i won't agree with you on all points, but i don't disagree on some, to a point.

I don't see for example where 'Corbyn and his followers' as you put it have created any kind of narrative that businss is bad, indeed just today Corbyn has stated his support for business..it's a balancing act no doubt, enabling profit without exploitation, don't you think 'fat cats' should be targetted?.

As for companies considering leaving the UK, i would say the major, major reasons for that consideration would be Brexit, it's unfair at this point to suggest anything else than Brexit, wouldn't you agree?

[KerrAvon]

To be honest Kerr, you're the only one to put a bit of objectivity into this argument, i won't agree with you on all points, but i don't disagree on some, to a point.

I don't see for example where 'Corbyn and his followers' as you put it have created any kind of narrative that businss is bad, indeed just today Corbyn has stated his support for business..it's a balancing act no doubt, enabling profit without exploitation, don't you think 'fat cats' should be targetted?.

As for companies considering leaving the UK, i would say the major, major reasons for that consideration would be Brexit, it's unfair at this point to suggest anything else than Brexit, wouldn't you agree?

I've not really been following the news today and so have not seen Corbyn's pro-business statements, but they will have been drowned out by the Labour proposal that business be raided for an extra £20bn of tax per annum. Saying one thing when proposing to take actions that suggest the opposite is not an effective strategy.

If any company is found to breach the minimum wage regulations or any other aspect of employment law they should be dealt with for that as the law enables them to be. Beyond that, I don't think anyone or any company should be targetted. I think legislation is needed to protect company pension schemes from exploitation and I believe that the Tories are promising to bring such legislation forward.

Yes, Brexit creates a risk that companies (together with jobs and tax revenues) will leave the UK, but that’s the hand that the government has been dealt by the referendum. Increased corporate taxation increases the risk of companies moving out, which is why Hammond has indicated an intention to make the UK a low taxation economy.

[millmoormagic]

I've not really been following the news today and so have not seen Corbyn's pro-business statements, but they will have been drowned out by the Labour proposal that business be raided for an extra £20bn of tax per annum. Saying one thing when proposing to take actions that suggest the opposite is not an effective strategy.

If any company is found to breach the minimum wage regulations or any other aspect of employment law they should be dealt with for that as the law enables them to be. Beyond that, I don't think anyone or any company should be targetted. I think legislation is needed to protect company pension schemes from exploitation and I believe that the Tories are promising to bring such legislation forward.

Yes, Brexit creates a risk that companies (together with jobs and tax revenues) will leave the UK, but that’s the hand that the government has been dealt by the referendum. Increased corporate taxation increases the risk of companies moving out, which is why Hammond has indicated an intention to make the UK a low taxation economy.

Ok, so, where does this leave the poorest people in our society Kerr, genuinely i need to know some answers, because as far as i can see, i'm seeing increased profits in business as a whole, i'm seeing the country's billionaires becoming extra extra rich, i'm seeing rich people avoiding tax and using tax havens(ex prime minster being one of them) taking wealth out of the country....i'm also seeing foodbanks increasing by 700%, homelessness rising significantly, in work poverty is rife, ****e wages, zero hour contracts...there's definitely a balance, and that balance is, on the face of it, weighing massively in favour of the rich, don't you agree?

[tony260674]

I will stick up for Corbyn here Kerr, although I believe he is unelectable and has damaged the Labour party, he isn't suggesting that business is bad, he is suggesting that bad business is bad and that there is an alternative. The way Mike Ashley runs his business is certainly not the way I want business' to be run in this country and I don't want huge companies such as Amazon and Starbucks to dictate to HMRC/UK government on how much tax they are willing to pay simply because they are powerful.

[millmoormagic]

I will stick up for Corbyn here Kerr, although I believe he is unelectable and has damaged the Labour party, he isn't suggesting that business is bad, he is suggesting that bad business is bad and that there is an alternative. The way Mike Ashley runs his business is certainly not the way I want business' to be run in this country and I don't want huge companies such as Amazon and Starbucks to dictate to HMRC/UK government on how much tax they are willing to pay simply because they are powerful.

Sorry Tony, i have to disagree, it's not Corbyn who has damaged the labour party, he's been elected, twice, through the membership, as leader, in my view the people damaging it are the ones not supporting him, or more to the point, back stabbing him, i don't believe he's the 'marxist troll. he is being portrayed to be.

[tony260674]

He has zero chance of winning, zero. That has damaged the Labour party whether you agree with him or not. We will now have a generation of right wing policies, the NHS will be gone as we know it, education will be better for the rich and worse for the poor and workers rights will be decimated, fox hunting will be decriminalised and Corbyn will have blood on his hands.
Why would his MP's support him when he hasn't supported any of the previous leaders?? Did he not stab Blair, Brown and Miliband in the back?

[millmoormagic]

Hold on though, surely you cannot put everything onto Corbyn's back? who's really to blame for a generation of right wing policies? All Jeremy Corbyn has done is stand for election, twice, and won, twice, through the membership.

Who really is to blame, for me there's been a narrative in this country that's took us lurching further to the right than we ever have been, a media that is on the verge of capitulation to the tory party, and a country that hasn't got a clue where it's going or where it's been...