O/T - general election 2019

[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?