Given that you have used the word 'implicated', I would assume that you know that I have never said that it is necessary to have the lowest tax rate to be competitive. If I'm wrong about that, you will doubtless be able to give some examples of me saying it or even 'implicating' it.
The whole basis of my many circular arguments with MMM is that having the highest or lowest tax rate is not what matters as he appears to believe; it is about having a tax rate that its competitive having regard to every other factor that determines the cost of operating in a particular country.
The point is that if Labour gains power and raids businesses for vast amounts of cash through its tax rises and its seizure of 10% of every decent sized public company (a tax raid by another name) it will be carnage for UK jobs as this country would be made a significantly less attractive place to operate.
Brexit on any terms will clearly have implications for whether businesses will choose to operate here and upon the scale of their operations if they remain. Anyone who says otherwise has their head in the sand, but I repeat the point that I made earlier that Brexit is what the electorate voted for.
Go on - admit it. You hadn't researched the detail of the P&O decision had you? After all, it had been carefully left out of the Guardian article.
As an aside, did you watch Abbott's performance on QT last week? I don't normally watch it, but have watched it on catch up to see what the fuss is about. Are you sticking to the Momentum issued interpretation that she was bullied? I thought she got the humpty on after the audience mocked her when she was defending The Great Leader's decision not to come out of his office to talk to May and that it went downhill after that. A great pick for Home Secretary in a Labour government.




Reply With Quote