O/T - general election 2019

[CASPER-64-FRANK]

I think it quite likely that, like any other parties, they will choose candidates that will support wholeheartedly the Labour manifesto. There is no point putting forward a person who opposes Labour's central ideas is there? All parties follow this process, including the more extreme version of the conservative party who, in fairness and on balance to the above discussion have probably de selected, or had more MPs defect that Labour due to what they perceive as a more extreme party, These are weird, and divisive times in politics but let's not get carried away, as the number of MPs standing down is still quite a bit below the the number who stood down before the last 3 elections.

A lot of the 50 MP's that have stood down this time are moderates. If they're being replaced by Right Wing / Left Wing where's the centre ground.
Most people I know just want to get on with life, look after their kids / grandkids. A lot couldn't give a ' crap '' about today's Politics or Polititions.

[KerrAvon]

I think that is spot on, Frank. Labour is losing moderate MPs and members in favour of the hard left who will toe the Momentum line, whilst the Tories have been stripped of many remainers and soft Brexiteers.

I'm not sure that polarisation of that type is good for anyone.

[ragingpup]

@ Raging

Again, whether deliberately or not, you are missing the point.

Surely, constituency Labour Party members are best placed to have a clear understanding of the issues being faced by a constuency? On that basis alone, shouldn't a constituency party have the right to make their selection of a Labour candidate as opposed to be given a list of Momentum approved clones?

On the face of it, the Islington Labour constituency repeatedly put forward a candidate that did not support the core policies of the supposedly 'Tory-lite' Blair manifestoes when they selected Corbyn. Were they wrong to do that?

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).

[ragingpup]

I am absolutely fed up with seeing Corbyn attacking the billionairs like they're the scurvy of society.

What is he going to do with them once he's drained/bled all of them for as much as he and his momentum puppeteers have created a place devoid of ambition?

Now he's announced a new member to his team. Someone who has a conviction for vote rigging.

What are the polls saying?

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.

[howdydoo]

I think that is spot on, Frank. Labour is losing moderate MPs and members in favour of the hard left who will toe the Momentum line, whilst the Tories have been stripped of many remainers and soft Brexiteers.

I'm not sure that polarisation of that type is good for anyone.

Not good at all. What's more worrying are the election pacts.

It's simply undemocratic.

Every citizen who is eligible to vote, should have the option to put a cross against a candidate and/or party they want to vote for. If Swinson, Farage etc don't want to put up a candidate, leave the name of their party on the ballot paper.

Shares for workers schemes? What size companies are we talking about Raging?? PLC's only? Extreme?? Tax cuts, No deal. Not sure that compares with your counter 'extremes' to be honest.

[ragingpup]

Not good at all. What's more worrying are the election pacts.

It's simply undemocratic.

Every citizen who is eligible to vote, should have the option to put a cross against a candidate and/or party they want to vote for. If Swinson, Farage etc don't want to put up a candidate, leave the name of their party on the ballot paper.

Shares for workers schemes? What size companies are we talking about Raging?? PLC's only? Extreme?? Tax cuts, No deal. Not sure that compares with your counter 'extremes' to be honest.

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.

[howdydoo]

A someone earning £80k a year is not necessarily wealthy.

It might put someone in the top 10% of earners but they are working for it. Might be a bloke bringing up a family of 5 with that. Goes out to work, doing 160 odd hours a month and what do you think he comes out with in net pay? Always Labours problem this. You try and target people who probably deserve that bit more due to their work/profession etc and try and dress it up as though they've literally got £1000's more of disposable wealth in their back pocket.

If you want to really tax the wealthy come up with some new sound bytes. Look at disposal income, property wealth, inheritance tax and all the other areas that smell of filthy rich, rather than come with the same old crap.

People earning the top 10% are not the 10% wealthiest people in our society. Far from it. It's the problem with your politics. You want to dress up everything else as a lie or 'extreme, yet you post garbage like this.

No appetite for competition, wealth creation or fair play. Usual shop steward mentality.

[Redshank]

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.

Corporation tax has consistently been around 30% since the late 1980s but since 2010 has been slashed down to 17%, all at a time when the country was having to endure "austerity" as a result of having to bail out the banks. We were all supposedly "tightening our belts". In reality, the poorest in society were having to carry the can with the richest top few percent only increasing their wealth further.

Personally, I find this iniquitous and will vote for the party who will best try to redress the balance. Folk can bang on about "politics of envy" but it's nothing to do with that. It's all about fairness.

[howdydoo]

It's currently 19%.

Wonder what the comparison with these countries is on Business Rates? Pretty sure UK businesses pay more than German and French companies combined.

[ragingpup]

A someone earning £80k a year is not necessarily wealthy.

It might put someone in the top 10% of earners but they are working for it. Might be a bloke bringing up a family of 5 with that. Goes out to work, doing 160 odd hours a month and what do you think he comes out with in net pay? Always Labours problem this. You try and target people who probably deserve that bit more due to their work/profession etc and try and dress it up as though they've literally got £1000's more of disposable wealth in their back pocket.

If you want to really tax the wealthy come up with some new sound bytes. Look at disposal income, property wealth, inheritance tax and all the other areas that smell of filthy rich, rather than come with the same old crap.

People earning the top 10% are not the 10% wealthiest people in our society. Far from it. It's the problem with your politics. You want to dress up everything else as a lie or 'extreme, yet you post garbage like this.

No appetite for competition, wealth creation or fair play. Usual shop steward mentality.

You might have missed the post where I said that Labour should avoid ‘wealth bashing’ and that we absolutely should respect the hard work put in by the vast majority of workers, from the richest to those on lowest incomes propped up by the tax payer. People’s hard work isn’t in question: as shank says it’s a question of fairness and how do we go about paying for what we feel we need. I agree with you that any party should look at all ways of doing this and I think Labour for one are exploring variations of the ones you suggest, but all will be branded as ‘extreme’ and ‘wealth bashing’, whichever they choose. In fact they already have for the very measures you suggest. They aren’t “new sound bites”, they are already on the table. We’ll see from the different party’s manifestos what they will focus on. The Conservatives have proposed big spending also – that’s good to hear from someone who wants good financing of essential services, but how do you think they intend topay for this, whilst giving a 10 billion tax break to people in the top 10%?

You raised the question of tax cuts being extreme? I gave you a line of how our corporation tax compares to our competitive rivals and we are EXTREMELY low by comparison. Is that extreme I asked? Why no answer to that? If you can throw easy ‘extreme’ accusations at Labour policies, perhaps I can do likewise and expect at least an attempt at a response? Sorry but it seems that you want to hush up extreme policies when it favours the more well off?