O/T - general election 2019

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wendun

The Uriah Heep of MM. Insincere, ingratiating, patronising, prolix beyond tedium and endless cut and paste.

---

Bit harsh on yourself Monty...I like you at least x

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragingpup

I agree with that Kerr. And happy to learn from this, but how does Labour's selection of constituency candidates differ from the Conservatives or Lib Dems? Given that under 50% of MPs from all parties are not from their constituency, how is it different here for Labour?

I agree with the broad thrust of what you and Frank are saying in that I think that both major parties should have room for centre ground voices as part of their decision making. I hope also that the manifesto hones the better ideas Labour (50% high rate tax is no different to Miliband in 2015), that any rise in Corporation tax is kept fully competitive with other countries, that we use a shares for workers scheme solely as a boost for company workers leaving out the treasury boost, that we don't plan to forcibly repossess public schools etc. I still think that the moderate voices are there in the party, as there are in the Tory party and that this will still avoid extreme policies (such as No Deal, tax cuts for high earners, corporation tax cuts as well as the Labour more extreme policy ideas of recent times).

---

Whether you are happy to learn from the imposition of a centrally imposed candidates in Rother Valley is irrelevant, It is the party that you represent and campaign for that needs to do so. Rother Valley is just one of many constituencies where it will happen. Similarly it is irrelevant if you think that your party should have room for centre ground, if your party doesn’t.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragingpup

I actually agree Frog that deliberately setting out to highlight wealthy people as the baddies is likely to be counterproductive as normal voters are quite literate on the potential negative impact of stultifying wealth creation. I think that many more extreme voters would point to the ongoing widening of wealth inequality, the substantial increases in the top % of wealthy people despite the economic crash (and in some cases, being partly responsible for it but not held to account) and the quite blatant presence of work based poverty with tax payers propping up poor wages, as well as poor public services and are looking at easy scapegoats as opposed to reasoned arguments and restrained plans to lesson inequality and deal with these issues.

I would prefer Labour to cut the class war bollo and just emphasise the benefits of their tax proposals which are moderate and in line with overseas competition. Clive Lewis is quite a moderate Labour MP but he sums it up well here: https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ax-rich-tories

I agree with what Kerr said earlier that across the board attempts to ‘sell’ income tax rises which involve everyone paying more has shown not to translate into election success. But the progressive raising of the top 5% (80k per year+ earners) seemed to prove quite popular in the last election although not enough. I think that a similar approach on tax could still prove quite a significant factor in stopping a Tory majority (I think outright majority for Labour is very unlikely) and them getting a mandate for hard right policies. But I agree that ‘wealth bashing’ is crass and I’d like not to see it.

What are the polls saying? Labour are gaining quite a lot from other parties according to the Telegraph today: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...-2019-uk-odds/ Although obviously as a Conservative supporting paper I like the words: “The latest polling average has the Conservative Party on over 35 points, with Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party trailing in the high-20s” – diding the fact that Labour gained around 4% in the last week  Still looks comfy for the Tories though.

---

Are you sure that Labour's Momentum and Union masters are literate on the potential negative impact of stultifying wealth creation? I'm not, given the anti-business and wealth rhetoric that comes from the party.

Of course the notion that somebody other than the majority of Labour supporters should pay more tax proved quite popular amongst the electorate at the last election. Are you surprised? If you accept the proposition that people don’t want to pay more for the services they would like, then you surely accept the notion that they the like the idea that someone else should? In essence isn’t that what you are selling on the doorstep?

I think you are showing ‘it’s not the electorate - it’s the mainstream media that don’t like us’ paranoia when you say that The Telegraph article is hiding the growing support for Labour. The article is quite clear about the relative standing of the parties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragingpup

Yes, tax cuts for the wealthy are rarely seen as ‘extreme’, but maybe if you look at how we compare with nearby competing countries. Corporation tax: Germany 30%, France 35%, Italy 29%, Netherlands 25%, Portugal 32%, Spain 35%, Norway 23%, Sweden 22%, UK 19% and with further commitments from the Conservatives to cut this further towards the Irish 12.5%. What would you consider to be extreme?

Likewise, Boris pledged to raise the higher tax threshold from 40k to 80k to benefit the wealthiest 10% at a cost to the public of 10 billion. Is that extreme? If not, what does count as extreme in your book re: tax cuts?

No deal? Yes extreme, and hope that Boris steers us clear from this as there is clearly no democratic manadate looking at how the Brexit Party is tailing off and falling behind Johnson’s deal.

Of course I don’t have definitive on this, but as always on MM I think it worthwhile to offer counter arguments to the pro-conservative majority on here, and the way that many Labour policies are very easily branded extremist whilst the Tories get an easy ride. Just challenging is all and no doubt will get pelters for trying to ‘leftie lecture‘ everyone despite being in the minority opinion. Interesting topic.

---

Corporate tax rates are just one of a range of taxes and expenses that companies operating in the UK face. As Howdy has mentioned, business rate are another form of taxation. In addition land prices, wage rates and energy costs will be different from those in the countries that are competing to host the companies that operate, employ people and pay taxes in the UK.

The point is one of equilibrium; one can assume that the companies who operate, employ and pay taxes in the UK are the ones that consider the conditions in the UK to favour doing so. If you increase corporate tax rates, extend worker’s rights (which, before you go all morally superior, I am not necessary opposed to) and unleash the Trade Unions to cause mayhem of a type last seen in the 80s you shift that equilibrium by making the UK a less desirable place to do so. I assume that you can agree that? If you can’t, perhaps you can explain why?

As for Ireland having a corporate tax rate of just 12.5%, you will recall that I recently posted a link to an article that reported that Ireland had the 4th best standard of living in the world. Your response was that there was nothing within the article that indicated that low tax rates had increased tax revenues (by encouraging companies to choose to pay their taxes there). I found that quite revealing and confirmative of my suspicion that increased taxation rates is an article of faith for the current Labour membership as opposed to a means to an end.


Again, I think the notion that this site has a pro-conservative majority is an example of paranoia. Roly is still reeling over the claim not to be a Socialist that you made last week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KerrAvon

Are you sure that Labour's Momentum and Union masters are literate on the potential negative impact of stultifying wealth creation? I'm not, given the anti-business and wealth rhetoric that comes from the party.

Of course the notion that somebody other than the majority of Labour supporters should pay more tax proved quite popular amongst the electorate at the last election. Are you surprised? If you accept the proposition that people don’t want to pay more for the services they would like, then you surely accept the notion that they the like the idea that someone else should? In essence isn’t that what you are selling on the doorstep?

I think you are showing ‘it’s not the electorate - it’s the mainstream media that don’t like us’ paranoia when you say that The Telegraph article is hiding the growing support for Labour. The article is quite clear about the relative standing of the parties.

---

As a general question, would you like to see more money invested in health and social care and public services? If you'd like to invest more money, how do you suggest we could raise it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragingpup

As a general question, would you like to see more money invested in health and social care and public services? If you'd like to invest more money, how do you suggest we could raise it?

---

I would tell people that if they wanted more to be spent on public services then they need to be willing to pay more taxes. I'm a succour for honesty.

I'm not sure that I agree with your use of the word 'invest'. Health and social care spending are a day to day expense as oppose to an investment. I don't invest in my lunch, I pay for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragingpup

So you would ask people on low wages to contribute more than they already do to improve public services? Fair enough. Do you consider the current higher rates of income tax unfair on higher earners? If not, what rates would you set the higher rates at if it was down to you?

---

I think that everybody who wants more money put into public services needs to accept that the money has to come from them. Before you get all morally superior about that, you will recall that you support a party who thinks that the lowest paid in society should pay tuition fees for people to go to university with the intention of gaining from that to become higher earners.

As it happens, I would favour policies that take more lower earners completely out of taxation. This may come as a surprise to you, given that it will not fit in with your 'Kerr doesn't like Corbyn so must be a counter revolutionary class enemy' prejudices.

The clue to the issue is right under your nose: For the many not the few' is very informative. There aren't enough very high earners to make a difference, particularly if you set tax rates that don't encourage them to off shore their wealth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragingpup

As a general question, would you like to see more money invested in health and social care and public services? If you'd like to invest more money, how do you suggest we could raise it?

---

I’ve said before, the NHS is a ‘ big black hole ‘. We can keep pouring money into for ever and a day.
By all means put 1p / 2p on my income tax, as long as every penny is accounted for. Unfortunately I’m still not convinced the majority actually would accept the tax rise.
They need to divert more cash into Social Care as a priority.
Most things have been tried, encouraging people to eat a balanced diet, sugar tax, exercising to prevent any further illness.
Certainly need more GP’s as well as Junior Doctors and Nursing staff.
Don’t let top managers be a priority.

I worked around the NHS for 12yrs you could not believe the money they waste.A lot of company's make an absolute fortune out of the NHS because you can only buy from them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CASPER-64-FRANK

I’ve said before, the NHS is a ‘ big black hole ‘. We can keep pouring money into for ever and a day.
By all means put 1p / 2p on my income tax, as long as every penny is accounted for. Unfortunately I’m still not convinced the majority actually would accept the tax rise.
They need to divert more cash into Social Care as a priority.
Most things have been tried, encouraging people to eat a balanced diet, sugar tax, exercising to prevent any further illness.
Certainly need more GP’s as well as Junior Doctors and Nursing staff.
Don’t let top managers be a priority.

---

1 or 2p on income tax wouldn't make a dent. That's the issue that politicians don't like to talk about.