O/T - general election 2019

[KerrAvon]

The problem with Labour is the better Labour MP’s are on the backbenches, and they’re still celebrating losing the 2017 Election.
They need a reality check and ought to go door knocking and ask Joe Public why they’re not prepared to vote Labour.

If they asked that question, a lot of people would reply 'Jeremy Corbyn', but they were blocked by the wider Labour membership when they tried to do something about that.

Maybe Corbyn will go if Labour fail to win, but he will probably be replaced by a member of Momentum's clone army, which will still leave the party out in the cold.

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

Well just in case Labour win:-

"Two top energy firms say they have moved ownership of their UK operations overseas to protect themselves from Labour's nationalisation plans.

In recent months, National Grid has opened offshore holding companies in Hong Kong and Luxembourg, while SSE has incorporated in Switzerland"


Yeah, easy peasy is this nationalisation

[Exiletyke]

Well just in case Labour win:-

"Two top energy firms say they have moved ownership of their UK operations overseas to protect themselves from Labour's nationalisation plans.

In recent months, National Grid has opened offshore holding companies in Hong Kong and Luxembourg, while SSE has incorporated in Switzerland"


Yeah, easy peasy is this nationalisation

Not quite as easy as selling them off eh?

[CASPER-64-FRANK]

Not quite as easy as selling them off eh?

Just means they’re protecting their Shareholders from losing money.

[CASPER-64-FRANK]

Well just in case Labour win:-...BIG LOL, BIG LOL

"Two top energy firms say they have moved ownership of their UK operations overseas to protect themselves from Labour's nationalisation plans.

In recent months, National Grid has opened offshore holding companies in Hong Kong and Luxembourg, while SSE has incorporated in Switzerland"


Yeah, easy peasy is this nationalisation

Just read your first line.

[ragingpup]

Message for Kerr – no time to whizz through to find your posts. I said I’d link to economists who were supportive of the labour manifesto. A quick whizz now finds three:

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...eology-economy

https://www.newstatesman.com/politic...s-credible-too

https://www.thecanary.co/trending/20...ur-propaganda/

You say you read the Guardian? I’m amazed you don’t get a more balanced view in there as there have been several articles that have spoken for the Labour manifesto, as well as against. But I agree with earlier comments on here from other posters that you can only look on both manifestos through the filter of your own ideologies, and it seems blinkered to not recognise that. No one, including the IFS can predict how the markets and business will react to such moves. You can suppress wages, but justify that to your workers? You can raise prices, but justify that to your customers when competitors will seek to take advantage. In these cases, the market economy can help check such basic responses.

It is a very ambitious manifesto, and not without risks. I would prefer a more modest advancement from the 2017 manifesto as I’ve already said, I think that Labour made it too easy to be attacked on the manifesto. In saying that, even modest wealth redistribution proposals would still be rabidly attacked so not sure how much difference it makes. I would like more people to be contributing more towards the tax increases, but we have seen that this isn’t electorally successful, so is a non-starter. But we still then have a choice: either continue with more of the same, keep getting what we always get; look at the country and towns we see around us and decide if we need and want a fairer economy and better funded services and if so, then look at the manifestos to see which one we feel is likely to have an impact towards the country and towns that we want to see. The only real certainty, looking at the Tory manifesto is more of the same, no plans to deal with service decline, social care provision, homelessness, poverty.

Re: Labour’s plans relating to economic neighbours, this article compares state size, spending and services between a low state/tax economy in the USA and an opposite in Sweden: https://www.theguardian.com/business...look-at-Sweden arguing that, despite the IFS inability to see anything other than the neo-liberal ideology, that economies with higher tax and state presence can prosper economically.

[WanChaiMiller]

Well just in case Labour win:-

"Two top energy firms say they have moved ownership of their UK operations overseas to protect themselves from Labour's nationalisation plans.

In recent months, National Grid has opened offshore holding companies in Hong Kong and Luxembourg, while SSE has incorporated in Switzerland"


Yeah, easy peasy is this nationalisation

Yet when companies threaten the same thing re Brexit its scare mongering.

[CASPER-64-FRANK]

Message for Kerr – no time to whizz through to find your posts. I said I’d link to economists who were supportive of the labour manifesto. A quick whizz now finds three:

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...eology-economy

https://www.newstatesman.com/politic...s-credible-too

https://www.thecanary.co/trending/20...ur-propaganda/

You say you read the Guardian? I’m amazed you don’t get a more balanced view in there as there have been several articles that have spoken for the Labour manifesto, as well as against. But I agree with earlier comments on here from other posters that you can only look on both manifestos through the filter of your own ideologies, and it seems blinkered to not recognise that. No one, including the IFS can predict how the markets and business will react to such moves. You can suppress wages, but justify that to your workers? You can raise prices, but justify that to your customers when competitors will seek to take advantage. In these cases, the market economy can help check such basic responses.

It is a very ambitious manifesto, and not without risks. I would prefer a more modest advancement from the 2017 manifesto as I’ve already said, I think that Labour made it too easy to be attacked on the manifesto. In saying that, even modest wealth redistribution proposals would still be rabidly attacked so not sure how much difference it makes. I would like more people to be contributing more towards the tax increases, but we have seen that this isn’t electorally successful, so is a non-starter. But we still then have a choice: either continue with more of the same, keep getting what we always get; look at the country and towns we see around us and decide if we need and want a fairer economy and better funded services and if so, then look at the manifestos to see which one we feel is likely to have an impact towards the country and towns that we want to see. The only real certainty, looking at the Tory manifesto is more of the same, no plans to deal with service decline, social care provision, homelessness, poverty.

Re: Labour’s plans relating to economic neighbours, this article compares state size, spending and services between a low state/tax economy in the USA and an opposite in Sweden: https://www.theguardian.com/business...look-at-Sweden arguing that, despite the IFS inability to see anything other than the neo-liberal ideology, that economies with higher tax and state presence can prosper economically.

It isn’t a Tory Manifesto ragingpup,
It’s more like a November budget announcement, very little substance in it, apart from Get Brexit Done.
Even the 50k new nurses is an untruth.

Soon be 13th December.

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

It isn’t a Tory Manifesto ragingpup,
It’s more like a November budget announcement, very little substance in it, apart from Get Brexit Done.
Even the 50k new nurses is an untruth.

Soon be 13th December.

Yes that's exactly what it is.

They should have taken a leaf out of the Labour and Lib Dem's book and promised things that they couldn't afford nor deliver.

[CASPER-64-FRANK]

Yes that's exactly what it is.

They should have taken a leaf out of the Labour and Lib Dem's book and promised things that they couldn't afford nor deliver.

It’s called playing it safe and not dropping a clanger like Theresa May did.
Makes me wonder if Labour actually want to win this election or sit it out for another 4 / 5 years.