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

[ragingpup]

You should read back over my posts. I have given a single example of where I believe that privatised performs better than nationalised when I compared my current experience of almost daily rail travel with that on British Rail in the 1980s. That will be a factor I bear in mind when I vote. Beyond that, I’ve made the point that if the private sector can provide an acceptable level of service at a lower price than the public sector can then that has to be to the benefit of taxpayer, which appears to be a position that you agree with.

You suggest, in terms, that you have no ideological attachment to nationalisation. Given that you appear to want to get into straw man arguments and putting words in my mouth, I’ll reciprocate and suggest that this comment of yours post 363 suggests otherwise Whilst I have much to criticise in the last 40 years of an ideology of profit maximisation at all costs, it is that accountability for performance is a good think. So why don't we run the railways ourselves and generate the profits that the private companies are currently making in order to make the services better?

You state: I must say that you sir are going on your experience of rail travel, I'm going by a direct comparison between public and private, tube and rail and there is absolutely no contest.

Thanks for telling me what I’m going on. I’ve told you that I commute. Did it not occur to you to consider where I commute? Does it not hint at something that I know that TFL is a publically owned body? Do you suppose that you are the only one on here with experience of travel in London? Let me put it this way, as I commuted in to one of my places of work last week, I asked a friend, who I was travelling with and who works at the Royal Mail in Victoria, how he feels at the prospect of being made into a civil servant by Labour. His quick as a flash response was that it would make no difference to him as the trains would be fuqed and he wouldn’t be able to get in. Not exactly belly laugh country, but the speed of his riposte did make me choke on my coffee. The funny thing is that he is Labour to the core. We got on different tube lines as we always do.

I think that both London Underground and Overground are generally good (better now that the tube is a partial 24 hour service). I’ve never used a London bus.

Great to hear that you're a frequent traveler on our publicly owned tube system. So you can experience for yourself the complete contradiction in your earlier statement that without the cash incentives of a private, market driven structure, a public service will be badly run.

[KerrAvon]

1. So you have found NO historical evidence of a link between cuts in corporation tax and economic growth? Yet you persist in floating this very notion as your only answer to wealth creation so that we can fund better services

2. If we ran with your belief that the way to create wealth is to cut corporation tax and in fact, cut all tax burdens why don't you suggest we go the whole hog: abolish corporation tax altogether? Further, wouldn't it increase wealth in the country to have a ceiling on the amount of tax paid. For example, all people up to say 80k per year pay tax as normal, but all people earning over that are exempt from tax at all. If we follow the logic of your arguments, the amount of wealth created would outweigh the amount of tax that they would have paid and of course that would trickle down wouldn't it

Or would that give people evil ideas?!



And what have the Conservatives been doing for the last 8 years? Where is this lovely roof of which you speak? And where was this lovely roof over our heads when Thatcher set about butchering services and communities in the 80s? And New Labour for that matter? As I said at the start of this thread, we've had 40 years of right wing ideology which have in the main followed your economic arguments - the roof should be f-ing MASSIVE by now! If we're in the mood for analogies, how about a beautiful, ornamental roof, beautifully adorned with gold and diamonds...which is so small that only a precious few can fit under it? That do it for you? :-)



I think MMM stumped you beautifully further up the board with this. You're a conservative supporter and you have the gall to suggest that we should be concerned about the threat to the financial sector??? No sh*t Sherlock! Man you're good! And you have the balls to suggest that Corbyn is a risk to the economy??? WOW!!!

"

Because it suggests to me where you're coming at life from. I suspect, reading between the lines somewhat (and I'd like to be wrong, really I would) that whereas I accept that life can deal us very unfair hands, the first measure of our society is how well we structure our political and economic systems so that we protect those less fortunate than ourselves. I should stress that doesn't include the proven bone idle or cheats. The way that you popped in those little words suggests to me that your first priority is to create a society for the benefit of those who create (and inherit) wealth and that if that means that those less fortunate are left in their wake, then 'that's life'. If I've read that wrong, then I apologise, but that's how it came over...quite...smug. Superior...

Ok. I'll ignore the fact that you are letting the reasonable attitude slip and are getting a wee bit personal.

I linked above to an article that suggested evidence of a historical link between lower corporate taxes and increased growth, but also pointed out that you would struggle to get two economists to completely agree on the issue. I have my opinion, which I have clearly explained. Let's break it down a bit:

1. If you want a company to invest in plant and training so as to increase efficiency and to pay staff more, would you: a) take more money off that company in tax; or b) allow it to retain more cash and give it tax breaks for capital investment such as those you critcise in post 267?

2. If you want a company to choose to operate and invest in the UK would you: a) take more money off that company in tax; or b) reduce tax so as to make the UK an attractive place to operate?

If we eliminated corporate taxes, the advantage of healthy and growing economy would be realisable only through personal and consumption taxes. I don't consider that to be a reasonable option and think being absurd a poor mode of argument. We haven't really talked about income tax, but a person earning £80k would have a marginal tax rate of 40%, which is why the wealthy pay far more in tax than the less well off. I question whether they should be asked to pay more. What rate is Labour proposing?

The Conservatives over the last 8 years have drastically reduced the budget deficit and presided over rates of growth that many other governments would envy. That was after the roof was blown off in 2008.

At least MMM sought to address the Robin Hood tax point. Despite your repeated comments in the early part of thread about others not answering your points, you let it slip by. I take it from your comments that you don't feel that we should be concerned about the threat to the financial sector? The sector that pays direct taxes into the treasury at the rate of about £45bn p.a.? That just about sums things up in respect of the anti-business, profit is bad narrative that Labour now seems committed to. How would you fill the gap in the public finances ia significant part of the financial sector decides that Frankfurt and Paris look like better options than London?


No. I don't think life is fair. I also think, as I've said, is that the best way to provide for the less well off is to have a dynamic and growing economy where hard work and effort is rewarded and where reward is not seen as being something to despise and envy.

[KerrAvon]

A person who is physically unable to work may find it unfair that they have their benefits cut through through being deemed "fit to work". Depends on your priorities I suppose.

Absolutely bizarre to go from wanting a potential prime minister to be able to justify their stance, through being scrutinised on our behalf, and by their opponents on their policies to Hitler!! Ffs man, get a grip! :-)

A person who is physically unable to work would inevitably find it unfair that they have their benefits cut through through being deemed "fit to work". Priorities don't come into it.

[KerrAvon]

Hold on, you've just endorsed labour party policy on nato......

I didn't. The official Labour line (i.e the non-Corbyn one) is pro-Trident. You may not have noticed, but I am at the very least equivocal on that.

I'll endorse any policy from any party that I agree with and critcise any that I don't. I am not a member of any party and never have been. For example, I suspect that one of the things that May will do if she gets a big enough majority will be to repeal the Human Rights Act. I suppose it may turn upon what it is replaced by, but I am vehemently opposed to such a move. As you may have seen on here, I like to ask those who support its repeal which of their rights they'd be happy to give up.

[KerrAvon]

Great to hear that you're a frequent traveler on our publicly owned tube system. So you can experience for yourself the complete contradiction in your earlier statement that without the cash incentives of a private, market driven structure, a public service will be badly run.

I believe that that competition and the need to give a return to shareholders is likely to drive business efficiencies. The fact that I find the service on the tube and London Overground pretty good doesn't change that, particularly as I find it pretty good on the national rail services that I use and the latter much better than the recurring nightmare that was travelling on BR in the 80s. I've also never looked into TFL's finances to see how they perform.

[millmoormagic]

I didn't. The official Labour line (i.e the non-Corbyn one) is pro-Trident. You may have noticed, but I am at the very least equivocal on that.

I'll endorse any policy from any party that I agree with and critcise any that I don't. I am not a member of any party and never have been. For example, I suspect that one of the things that May will do if she gets a big enough majority will be to repeal the Human Rights Act. I suppose it may turn upon what it is replaced by, but I am vehemently opposed to such a move. As you may have seen on here, I like to ask of those who supports its repeal which of their rights they'd be happy to give up.

Haha, no, you endorsed the labour party policy, as leader, Corbyn has also took the party line, you know that, you're just being cheeky fella!!

[KerrAvon]

Haha, no, you endorsed the labour party policy, as leader, Corbyn has also took the party line, you know that, you're just being cheeky fella!!

So are you saying that Trident has abandoned it's support of Trident, but that bit of news passed me by?

I'll repeat the point you ignored. I have no issue with agreeing with any policy that I find sensible, irrespective of which party proposes it and vice-versa. I haven't come on here pretending not to be a member of a political party, I am genuinely not one.

[ragingpup]

A person who is physically unable to work would inevitably find it unfair that they have their benefits cut through through being deemed "fit to work". Priorities don't come into it.

You said: "The Labour approach to achieving 'fairness' (who said life is fair) appears to be to take wealth from one part of society and give it to another, with no thought to its creation". The implication clearly being that those generating wealth should not be responsible for sharing it with those less fortunate. That life has dealt them an unfair hand, well that's life, get over it. Blase. Yet, at the thought of someone earning over 80k paying a little more, suddenly you become concerned with fairness.

[millmoormagic]

So are you saying that Trident has abandoned it's support of Trident, but that bit of news passed me by?

I'll repeat the point you ignored. I have no issue with agreeing with any policy that I find sensible, irrespective of which party proposes it and vice-versa. I haven't come on here pretending not to be a member of a political party, I am genuinely not one.

I didn't ignore the point deliberately, don't get paranoid, anyway, surprisingly enough, neither am i a member of any poltical party, though as you'd expect of me i can't find much about the tories that is ever good for the country as a whole.

[KerrAvon]

You said: "The Labour approach to achieving 'fairness' (who said life is fair) appears to be to take wealth from one part of society and give it to another, with no thought to its creation". The implication clearly being that those generating wealth should not be responsible for sharing it with those less fortunate. That life has dealt them an unfair hand, well that's life, get over it. Blase. Yet, at the thought of someone earning over 80k paying a little more, suddenly you become concerned with fairness.

Another straw man argument. I'm​ guessing that you find it easier to deal with points that haven't been made than ones that I have. How about you address my repeated question about your post 267 or those above about the likely effects of increased corporate taxes? Are they so difficult?

I remain of the view that the the Labour approach to achieving 'fairness' appears to be to take wealth from one part of society and give it to another, with no thought to its creation'. I consider it self evident that wealth needs to be created before it can be distributed. Don't you? There is little evidence available to suggest that the wider Labour Party does.