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

[KerrAvon]

Where did we get the money to nationalise the banks?

The Labour government of the time borrowed the money, Tony. It did so for what I consider to be the desirable outcome of preventing their collapse.

I'm not aware that any of the current Labour nationalisation targets are in danger of collapse

As I understand it, Labour are saying that the costs of borrowing to nationalise will be covered by the profits from the businesses, which begs three questions:

1. Given the history of the performance of nationalised industries, how can they be certain to make a profit;
2. If the nationalised businesses are to continue be run for profit, how will that benefit consumers; and
3. What's the difference between making a profit to pay dividends to investors and making a profit to make interest payments to the same people?

It seems to me that Labour are proposing to take on the business risk of the industries concerned for no discernible benefit. In other words, the policy is driven by ideology rather than economics or common sense.

[ragingpup]

What strikes me is that you can see the pieces of the jigsaw, but can't put them together.

Yes, Brexit poses risks to the UK economy. The possible imposition of tariffs on the export of British goods and services to the EU creates the risk that those goods and services will become far less attractive to European consumers making the UK a less attractive place to operate in. The loss of passporting on banking and other financial services will make London a far less attractive place to operate from.

Bearing the above in mind, and taking into account your comment about people shuffling away from questions, how about you answer the questions that I imposed to you in post 402:

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?

They are simple questions. Is there a reason why you won't address them?

I've answered these questions.

Happy to see you accept the risk to the economy posed by the government you are clearly supporting.

Why do you think they are so involved with pursuing this self destructive path?

And,as someone so interested in protecting the interests of economic performance, what are you doing to challenge this?

[millmoormagic]

People are well aware of the level of the national debt, magic. The difficulty with your position is that they know how it arose too.

In 2010, the coalition inherited a massive budget deficit and a note from Labour telling them that there was no money left.

Given that you appear to acknowledge that high levels of national debt are bad, what additional cuts do you think should have been imposed to bring the deficit down faster? And how do you feel about Labour's plans to nationalise the water companies and the national grid, which are uncosted in their manifesto or the accompanying costing document, which presumably means they intend to borrow the money?

Give over Kerr, you as well as i know that was a tongue in cheek note, i'm quite surprised a man of your calibre has brought that in to your argument, that's more gm's style

What cuts would i make to cut the debt?

The first thing i'd do would be to go softly softly on brexit, the tories are hell bent on screwing us over in their jingoistic drive for hard brexit, a soft brexit protecting our trad to the EU will ensure a relatively smooth transition, protecting what we've got fisrst and foremost.
Secondly i'd stop the wealth draining from the country via the rich corporations and individuals dodging tax, billions of pounds worth.
When we've stopped the greed, we can invest in the country, in infrastructure fit for a modern country, in training and upskilling the workforce, it's all relative to how we want the country to look, work.

[millmoormagic]

The Labour government of the time borrowed the money, Tony. It did so for what I consider to be the desirable outcome of preventing their collapse.

I'm not aware that any of the current Labour nationalisation targets are in danger of collapse

As I understand it, Labour are saying that the costs of borrowing to nationalise will be covered by the profits from the businesses, which begs three questions:

1. Given the history of the performance of nationalised industries, how can they be certain to make a profit;
2. If the nationalised businesses are to continue be run for profit, how will that benefit consumers; and
3. What's the difference between making a profit to pay dividends to investors and making a profit to make interest payments to the same people?

It seems to me that Labour are proposing to take on the business risk of the industries concerned for no discernible benefit. In other words, the policy is driven by ideology rather than economics or common sense.

1, Keep harping back to how things 'used to be' gets no one anywhere.
2, Are you saying then, that these private industries currently do not benefit consumers? in which case, they really do need to be sorted out...
3, The difference is huge, the company would be operating with a purpose, delivering a national service.

[gm_gm]

Where did we get the money to nationalise the banks?

The didn't Nationalise the banks as you well know Tony!

People on here who are anti capitalism dont focus on the real issues, there are different types of competition, Monopolistic which benefits everyone...diversity, no-one commands or dominates the market, and traders can compete based on service, quality and other points of difference.

Where all the left wingers go wrong is that they confuse this with non competitive market capitalism structures such as Oligopoly's, which I am strongly adverse too myself. Although we have regulation to stop such things happening, the loopholes for companies like Starbucks, Google, Shell, Amazon, Facebook, apple and many more.

The EU single market is an Oligopoly by its very nature

[ragingpup]

The didn't Nationalise the banks as you well know Tony!

People on here who are anti capitalism dont focus on the real issues, there are different types of competition, Monopolistic which benefits everyone...diversity, no-one commands or dominates the market, and traders can compete based on service, quality and other points of difference.

Where all the left wingers go wrong is that they confuse this with non competitive market capitalism structures such as Oligopoly's, which I am strongly adverse too myself. Although we have regulation to stop such things happening, the loopholes for companies like Starbucks, Google, Shell, Amazon, Facebook, apple and many more.

The EU single market is an Oligopoly by its very nature

Who is anti capitalism?

I for one is happy to live in a capitalist world that encourages both economic growth but has sufficient regulation within the system to ensure that our services are properly funded and that we take care of those that are not, for most reasons (no not benefit scroungers!) able to 'compete' in the job market as well as others. This is very different to the 'something for nothing' situation that people on here consistently complain about but of course, human nature dictates that some will take advantage of such 'safety nets'. However, as we have seen, the money we lose to such benefit cheats is comparable pennies and well worth having. I am more than happy to pay a little more out of my income tax to ensure this happens (and yes, I am on the middle tax rate - I do contribute more than most, and am happy with that situation.

What I find hard to swallow and will resist following 40 years of seeing only a right wing agenda with no actual alternative, is the increasing unquestioned shift towards a deregulated capitalist system (you say that we have regulation: please have a read of the http://www.tax.mpg.de/fileadmin/user...h_Willmott.pdf), where the only intervention from a government is to cut higher tax rates and allow the corporations to keep increasingly higher share of the profits. the trickle down affect is just that. A trickle. There needs to be intervention to increase the trickle in my opinion and it's cool, as futile as Corbyn's efforts are it seems, that at least for the first time in my voting life there is a genuine mainstream alternative for voters to consider. It won't be bought by the public as the great many of the working class voters have bought into May's illusion that we will get rid of lost of foreigners. (Crude I know but that, speaking to my old working class friends and family, is the bottom line of why they are voting for May in this election. I would be much happier if they were following the likes of Kerr's economic argument (leaving aside his myopia on not seeming at all concerned with the economic danger he himself has identified) but in my discussions with them they are not. It is all about immigration (as in getting rid of them).

I do feel it sad that any arguments, of which I have put forward lots, about why our 40 year path on the right (both tory and new labour) has produced economic results that on balance are working against the majority of working people, are met with simplistic accusations of socialism and "momentum" (sorry Kerr, I agree with what they are driving for in this instance but they aren't getting my membership). I am critical of labour's cohesion as a fighting unit up top and their endless ability to give the media easy targets (Robin Hood Tax! Aaargh!) but I feel that their package would bring most of us working punters a better package all round.

But anti capitalist I am most definitely not. The whole thing is very complicated I admit, but don't reduce those of us that try and cut through it to make alternatives to the dominant mindset.

[millmoormagic]

The fact is that it's the tories who want to keep the status quo, the us versus them it suits their agenda, gm has basically just admitted it. Jeremy Corbyn is portrayed as a communist/marxist rabid ne'erdowell who would absolutely ruin everyone's world, the fact is his policies are commonplace in Scandinavia, normal in fact, because they're plain common sense. The longer we allow the tories to carry on dividing us into groups they can demonise then we'll carry on the way we are. Personally, i'd like the next gov't to bring PR in as a voting option.
To be clear, we're talking about democratic socialism, that means we make the capitalist system work better for all, no one is anti capitalist unless you're a communist.

[ragingpup]

Just out of interest arising from my discussions with friends and family in Rotherham, I mentioned earlier in here my observations that a large amount of people are switching to the conservatives as they feel that she is most likely to be proactive in reducing immigration.

A question on here for those people for whom the control of immigration is the top priority and reason for voting Tory:

What do you think that you would do is, say in a year or so, May withdraws from talks with the EU and decides that it is in our economic interests to remain in the EU, that leaving would be just costly to industry (as feared by some of us).

What would you do, and what do you think the like minded public would do?

[howdydoo]

MMM made the same mistake every socialist does:

He assumed that capital just falls from the sky. He gave no thought to what would happen after he confiscated the infrastructure, equipment and property that was in the hands of 'the people who actually create the wealth' people who were incentivised and possessed the skills to maintain it.

Actually a piece attributed to Chavez in Venezuela but it the cap fits. Rings true.

I'd actually give more credence to you people if any of you actually had any sort of record in business and actually done any of these wonderful things you speak of. Talk such a fantastic game but as Churchill said:

“Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.”

Aint that the truth?


“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”

That's what you'll get if you guys get your way. You hide behind comments about the poor and unfairness but in reality you wish for more of the pie for yourselves.

Continually harping on about arrogance and attitudes, when you as individuals give nothing back to society other than your 'unbiased' view.

The rest of us poor souls are just brainwashed We simply go out, knowing life isn't always fair, yet realise we have far more opportunity, in front of us, than 90% of the worlds population. I pay more than tax than you that will help people who need it. Predominantly though, I'll do whatever I can and be as charitable as I can, to help people I KNOW and who I want to help. Family, friends (no requests please &#128540. They'll be no debt in my kids bank accounts, when they get to working age, serious illness aside. We considered little things like this before we brought them into the world.

The first day your politics is introduced in this country is the last day I'll pay higher taxes and the last day I'll create one extra job in this country.

Can't wait for you to fill the void with your business acumen and wisdom.

God help us.

[ragingpup]

MMM made the same mistake every socialist does:

He assumed that capital just falls from the sky. He gave no thought to what would happen after he confiscated the infrastructure, equipment and property that was in the hands of 'the people who actually create the wealth' people who were incentivised and possessed the skills to maintain it.

Actually a piece attributed to Chavez in Venezuela but it the cap fits. Rings true.

I'd actually give more credence to you people if any of you actually had any sort of record in business and actually done any of these wonderful things you speak of. Talk such a fantastic game but as Churchill said:

“Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.”

Aint that the truth?


“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”

That's what you'll get if you guys get your way. You hide behind comments about the poor and unfairness but in reality you wish for more of the pie for yourselves.

Continually harping on about arrogance and attitudes, when you as individuals give nothing back to society other than your 'unbiased' view.

The rest of us poor souls are just brainwashed We simply go out, knowing life isn't always fair, yet realise we have far more opportunity, in front of us, than 90% of the worlds population. I pay more than tax than you that will help people who need it. Predominantly though, I'll do whatever I can and be as charitable as I can, to help people I KNOW and who I want to help. Family, friends (no requests please ��). They'll be no debt in my kids bank accounts, when they get to working age, serious illness aside. We considered little things like this before we brought them into the world.

The first day your politics is introduced in this country is the last day I'll pay higher taxes and the last day I'll create one extra job in this country.

Can't wait for you to fill the void with your business acumen and wisdom.

God help us.

So where would you go and take your business Howdy?