O/T - general election 2019

[CASPER-64-FRANK]

Labour certainly drawn the battle lines.

If Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell turn this one round against all odds it will be the biggest result since the 66 World Cup.
Labour are claiming that the IFS have their figures and information wrong.
Roll on 13th December.......

[KerrAvon]

Labour certainly drawn the battle lines.

Last week, you quite rightly raised the need to create high quality jobs in the UK. How do you rate the chances of that happening under a Labour government that would create the harshest tax regime on business income among large advanced economies coupled with the threat of nationalisation?

[KerrAvon]

If Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell turn this one round against all odds it will be the biggest result since the 66 World Cup.
Labour are claiming that the IFS have their figures and information wrong.
Roll on 13th December.......

I think Labour are simply saying that they don’t like the fact that the IFS is questioning the credibility of their plans. I’m not aware that they are offering any actual argument on the point; they are just adopting a ‘deny, deny, deny’ approach to any inconvenient analysis. As I mentioned earlier, who should we trust on the point? A highly respected independent economics think tank or John McDonnell who said of Venezuela: “Here you had the contrast between capitalism in crisis and socialism in action.”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-...s-and-a-morgue

Only twenty days to go.

[CASPER-64-FRANK]

This is what really winds me up over Corbyn/labour..
He says, if in power he will get a deal then let the people decide. Everyone knows he will go for a extremely soft Brexit. Let the people vote. He's basically diluting the brexitiers
Once the dust settles he can't be blamed as it was the people who decided.. another snake.

Depends how you read the context and interpret it.
Jeremy Corbyn is taking a neutral stance cayton, don't see too much wrong with that. Him ,John McDonnell and a few others are ' leavers ' the rest will campaign on remain. So if you do accept Labour it's leave with a soft Brexit that the EU prefer or remain full stop.

If you remember it didn't do Harold Wilson too much harm in 1974, HW then led a minority Government and went on to win an October GE with a 3 seat majority.

Soon be 13th December...

[WanChaiMiller]

Last week, you quite rightly raised the need to create high quality jobs in the UK. How do you rate the chances of that happening under a Labour government that would create the harshest tax regime on business income among large advanced economies coupled with the threat of nationalisation?

My post earlier is that Labour spending would be on a parr with many other countries. Revenue is levied is over a number of different ways. The FT said Labours was weighted more to the profit of companies. Other countries are raising as much but in different ways. Not sure how that is weighted; whether from business in other ways, personal tax and inderect tax.

Its misleading to say since 2010 under Tories we've been a low tax country by comparison.* "Even though Britain had a 20 per cent corporate tax rate in 2016, much lower than the statutory rates of 33 per cent in France and 30 per cent in Germany in the same year, revenues were higher because the UK taxes a much broader definition of profits. As former chancellor George Osborne reduced the corporate tax rates between 2010 and 2017, he also expanded the reach of corporate taxes."

The FT article said it became the 'harshest tax regime' when factoring in the 10% levy eliment - "Once the extra burden of Labour’s proposal to force companies to hand 10 per cent of their shares to workers is taken into account the effective tax burden on profits would be higher than any other advanced economy."* [As a comment Id just say whats good for senior management appears bad for workers. Maybe part of what goes to senior management can be used for workers and offset the additional burden!]

The 10% levy is to be phased in over 10 years - 1% a year. In reality we dont know the extent to which the levy will apply or how companies will deal with it

So the headline comment you quoted, the "harshest tax regime on business income among large advanced economies" could be misleading and a false argument.

I think leaving the EU with no deal will impact more on our ability to create high class jobs than Labour taxation btw (the extra cost to business trading under WTO rules will be off bottom line revenue rather than the tax element of profit and a much greater financial burden to businesses). For me Brexit is a bigger problem than Labour - just my opinion).

Its a good point you made though; this only part answers it.* I'll get round to an attempt at making a broader reply later* - but for now I need to go out.

[KerrAvon]

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?

[flourbasher]

Having to vote for who you like the least is nothing new and has been part of the last few elections involving Cameron, May, Johnson and Corbyn. It,s also been the same in the USA in recent times so it's unfortunate but it's been part of the political landscape for a while now.

It's disapppointing that the audience aren't challenging these leaders a bit more on certain things they say.
Corbyn has said on two live debates now that he'll hold a second referendum and he wants the public to trust him to abide by the outcome. Unfortunately he said that Labour would abide by the outcome of the first referendum but now he wont honour the will of the people. He should be challenged on why anyone would now believe him after a massive u turn

Also when the likes of Corbyn and Swinson say that by holding a second referendum the country can settle this issue properly they are not being reminded that the country is likely to decend into virtual civil war and not abiding by referendums sets a totally unacceptable precedent to our democracy. Fiona Bruce briefly made this point but didn't force them to respond. They are coming across as though they have a simple solution but in fact it will make things considerably worse

[animallittle3]

My post earlier is that Labour spending would be on a parr with many other countries. Revenue is levied is over a number of different ways. The FT said Labours was weighted more to the profit of companies. Other countries are raising as much but in different ways. Not sure how that is weighted; whether from business in other ways, personal tax and inderect tax.

Its misleading to say since 2010 under Tories we've been a low tax country by comparison.* "Even though Britain had a 20 per cent corporate tax rate in 2016, much lower than the statutory rates of 33 per cent in France and 30 per cent in Germany in the same year, revenues were higher because the UK taxes a much broader definition of profits. As former chancellor George Osborne reduced the corporate tax rates between 2010 and 2017, he also expanded the reach of corporate taxes."

The FT article said it became the 'harshest tax regime' when factoring in the 10% levy eliment - "Once the extra burden of Labour’s proposal to force companies to hand 10 per cent of their shares to workers is taken into account the effective tax burden on profits would be higher than any other advanced economy."* [As a comment Id just say whats good for senior management appears bad for workers. Maybe part of what goes to senior management can be used for workers and offset the additional burden!]

The 10% levy is to be phased in over 10 years - 1% a year. In reality we dont know the extent to which the levy will apply or how companies will deal with it

So the headline comment you quoted, the "harshest tax regime on business income among large advanced economies" could be misleading and a false argument.

I think leaving the EU with no deal will impact more on our ability to create high class jobs than Labour taxation btw (the extra cost to business trading under WTO rules will be off bottom line revenue rather than the tax element of profit and a much greater financial burden to businesses). For me Brexit is a bigger problem than Labour - just my opinion).

Its a good point you made though; this only part answers it.* I'll get round to an attempt at making a broader reply later* - but for now I need to go out.

The IFS assessment of Labour's tax plans are pure ideology on their part and systematic of the neoliberal governance .

The IFS can't really consider a model where a government pursues social justice via structural change because no such model exists , there is simply nothing to reference it by .

There is no class struggle built in to the IFS model because it assumes workers are powerless individuals , consumers are dumb price takers , shareholders are in it for short term profit and intolerant of long term investment .

It assumes taxes have to be swallowed by the less well off because the powerful can make it so .

The IFS can't see another way , doesn't want to accept another way and has no reference of another way , it's full of assumptions .

[KerrAvon]

So you disagree with position taken by McDonell yesterday when he said: "I've a great deal of respect for the IFS"?

I guess you are getting in the 1970s mood with your Dave Spart like approach to the issue. Don't like the message so shoot the messenger.

[caytonmiller]

Depends how you read the context and interpret it.
Jeremy Corbyn is taking a neutral stance cayton, don't see too much wrong with that. Him ,John McDonnell and a few others are ' leavers ' the rest will campaign on remain. So if you do accept Labour it's leave with a soft Brexit that the EU prefer or remain full stop.:

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.