O/T - general election 2019

[Timbertop]

Andrew Neill ripped Nicola Sturgeon to bits in his interview tonight (catch it if you can). Probably the best interrogator in the British media. Jeremy's turn tomorrow. Bet he's quivering already but none of them will escape !!

[ragingpup]

I see that you are doing the old Gisjbert Bos shimmy there, raging. You promised me ‘financial institutions’ that disagreed with the IFS view and you gave me columnists from The Guardian and the New Statesman and someone who puts up videos on The Canary.

Please tell me that a link to The Canary was a joke? I know that you invite people to comment upon the ‘facts’ put out by Russia Today and also put up links to Skawkbox in support of your arguments, but, surely not The Canary?

I’m not going to bore myself and others by critiquing the articles for you save in two respects; both articles assert, in terms, that if a government somehow manages to stop the companies hit by the tax rises passing the additional cost onto their workers and customers then it’s just the shareholders who will bear the cost. The rich, apparently.

The problem is that neither columnist bothers to identify the shareholders... Large amongst them will be the pension funds that millions of working people rely upon to grow their money in order to provide pensions. Those working people will face either increased contributions or lower levels of pension.

The second issue is that neither article addresses the central point that companies will react to being taxed. They will not stand there waiting to be rinsed by McDonnell like cows in the fiscal milking parlour. As I mentioned to Wan yesterday, I am yet to see anyone put up a coherent argument against that. The stock response is to put head firmly in sand and to mutter about ‘neoliberalism’.

The articles are little more than a repeat of the myth that is being peddled on the doorstep that people can have better services, but someone else is going to pay.

You promised me a response to my query about where your assertion came from that Labour's plans would leave us with tax rates on income and corporates being the same as Germany and lower than France? The statement from the IFS that Labour’s plans will increase the overall tax burden on companies to the point where they are the highest in the G7 and well in excess of both Germany and France was based on maths, not ideology and it was a statement made before McDonnell gave an on the hoof pledge to find yet another £58bn for the WASPI women, presumably in an attempt to shift the opinion polls.

I said I'd link to economists, not financial institutions. You're trying to link everything to financial institutions as you are clinging on to the ifs and think that anything that isn't a similar institution won't count as an opposite viewpoint to your own.

The Canary wasn't the publisher of the economists critique. She did that herself. The canary just happened to link to it. As I think you well know, she did not do the critique for the canary.

The economists I linked to provide a comprehensive reasoning. It just doesn't match your own ideology and what you think will happen, that's all. You predict that it is inevitable that companies will inevitably pass on the costs to the people it serves (worker /customer/ahareholder. I predict that they world be wise, in a competitive market, not to do this, but to simply accept the new rates and the potential benefits of productivity, happier workforce. Again, I can't pass that up as an inevitable outcome, but neither can you. That's the point that a few of us are trying to get through to you.

Re: higher tax and corporate tax rates under labour's plans world still be competitive with other countries in the EU as headline rates. That's what i was referring to. Adding in the other rates that will hit business which the ifs refer to as overall tax rates sounds like labour overreaching and I wish they hadn't. I've said all along that we need to remain competitive with raised taxes. As I said, we have gone too far with the overall package and given more ammo to critics than they would have thrown anyway. As I said, not without risk, but doing nothing a la the tories manifesto, we already know the outcome: underfunded services and the continuation of many, many deaths of our vulnerable citizens on the streets and through lack of essential care. That for me is a huge price to pay.

But evasive over Red Ed. You suddenly seem to struggle with details of an an event four years ago. Did you vote for him? If not, what policies of his put you off?

And again, I'll ask the question of what you would do differently. Just to recap, you have stated that a penny in the pound won't give us close to what we need. I agree. We need something big and bold, a new way surely as what we are doing surely isn't working if what you say about what we need not being closer to being covered by a penny from us all. I agree it is very difficult. But you don't seem to advocate anything different to the status quo. So what bolder policies would you actually support that might have an impact on providing what we need?

[animallittle3]

The IFS assumes that it is impossible to stop those with wealth and power to pass the cost of higher taxes down to the working class .

There is no such model where the behaviour of consumers , workers , shareholders , managers , the finance industry , government and central bank are all simulated , none what so ever .

It's findings are speculative at best and full of flaws .

If people want to accept it's findings as facts it's no skin of my nose .

[ragingpup]

What the IFS says is already pretty well spun in that article. Here’s a link to the real thing:

https://www.ifs.org.uk/election/2019...fs-researchers

Secondly, I would have thought that how animal and raging spins it would be more interesting than what I think. I’m a fan of the IFS whereas they have both spent time branding the them as neoliberal enemies of the revolution and mouthpieces of the bourgeois hegemony or whatever the current buzz phrases of the Left are. Are they going to a do a 180?

The IFS analysis is hardly surprising. The Tory manifesto was rather ‘beige’ to say the least.

Hyperbole as ever, when it suits you Kerr. You can opinions of the ifs are worth listening to. But you have to do what always criticise others of not doing : examine their opinions critically. You are simply parroting their opinion as fact, as if they are the only source in economics that matters. It simply isn't true. It's so ironic that you so unthinking and obviously so what you continually mock others for doing.

[KerrAvon]

I said I'd link to economists, not financial institutions. You're trying to link everything to financial institutions as you are clinging on to the ifs and think that anything that isn't a similar institution won't count as an opposite viewpoint to your own.

The Canary wasn't the publisher of the economists critique. She did that herself. The canary just happened to link to it. As I think you well know, she did not do the critique for the canary.

The economists I linked to provide a comprehensive reasoning. It just doesn't match your own ideology and what you think will happen, that's all. You predict that it is inevitable that companies will inevitably pass on the costs to the people it serves (worker /customer/ahareholder. I predict that they world be wise, in a competitive market, not to do this, but to simply accept the new rates and the potential benefits of productivity, happier workforce. Again, I can't pass that up as an inevitable outcome, but neither can you. That's the point that a few of us are trying to get through to you.

Re: higher tax and corporate tax rates under labour's plans world still be competitive with other countries in the EU as headline rates. That's what i was referring to. Adding in the other rates that will hit business which the ifs refer to as overall tax rates sounds like labour overreaching and I wish they hadn't. I've said all along that we need to remain competitive with raised taxes. As I said, we have gone too far with the overall package and given more ammo to critics than they would have thrown anyway. As I said, not without risk, but doing nothing a la the tories manifesto, we already know the outcome: underfunded services and the continuation of many, many deaths of our vulnerable citizens on the streets and through lack of essential care. That for me is a huge price to pay.

But evasive over Red Ed. You suddenly seem to struggle with details of an an event four years ago. Did you vote for him? If not, what policies of his put you off?

And again, I'll ask the question of what you would do differently. Just to recap, you have stated that a penny in the pound won't give us close to what we need. I agree. We need something big and bold, a new way surely as what we are doing surely isn't working if what you say about what we need not being closer to being covered by a penny from us all. I agree it is very difficult. But you don't seem to advocate anything different to the status quo. So what bolder policies would you actually support that might have an impact on providing what we need?

I’m not clinging to anything. It was you that raised financial institutions when you said: Yes, the ifs have their opinion. But other financial institutions have theirs :and put over opposing arguments to the ifs. I asked you which financial institutions and you put up your links today to columnists in Left leaning publications.

The columnists that you linked to do not put up comprehensive arguments; they completely ignore the pension impact of Labour’s plans and one repeats the Labour myth that the rich are paying. The New Statesman ducks the issue by misrepresenting what the IFS said.

I will confess that I haven’t watched the canary video. I saw which site it was on and assumed that you were on the wind up. I’ll take a look at some indeterminate point in the future.


You are just not getting the economics of this, raging. Let me take you through it step by step to see if we can work out where you are going wrong:

1. If you take significantly more money from companies in taxation, then unless they are printing it, that money has to come from somewhere.
2. The companies affected by increased taxation have to take that money from their employees, their customers, or their shareholders.
3. If their shareholders take the hit in reduced dividends that means reduced income for pension funds that provide pensions for millions of working people.
4. Reduced income for pension funds means reduced pension fund growth that either has to be addressed by increased pension contributions (from those millions of workers) or reduced pensions (for those millions of workers).

Let me put it another way; when you say: You predict that it is inevitable that companies will inevitably pass on the costs to the people it serves (worker /customer/ahareholder. [sic] , which implies that you think there is another source. Which source do you have in mind? You raise the possibility of higher productivity as a solution, but don’t explain how that is to be acheived. Taking more money out of business is likely to reduce investment and reduce the option for increased productivity and it is a massive increase that you are calling for. It’s never easy to rasie productivity and your options are to have the same number of employees producing more or producing the same with fewer employees (or somewhere between those two points on a sliding scale.). So how many job losses are acceptable and why do you think companies haven’t raised productivity already if it is possible?

You might well believe it a mistake that that raising taxes – as Labour intend to – to the point where the overall tax burden on companies to will be the highest in the G7 and well in excess of both Germany and France and will make us uncompetitive, but, with respect, what has that got to do with anything? If Labour is elected, they are planning to do exactly that. Your views are irrelevant and my view is that we might all end up wishing that they hadn't.

And still nobody has offered a coherent argument as to why companies will choose to stay and be part nationalised and taxed to the hilt. HSBC and Unliever – both massive tax payers - have threatened to quit the UK in recent years. Why would they stay for Labour? Plenty more have the capacity to do so – a particular feature of the large British companies is that they often do far more business outside the UK than in it. Why stay in a country that makes you unwelcome?

I’m not being evasive about Miliband. I can’t recall the 2015 Labour policies and have no interest in looking them up. It was an anonymous phase in Labour’s history (just like Long-Bailey’s will be). I can’t recall how I voted in 2015 (but know that it wasn’t the Tories, because I have never voted for them in a General Election). It’s possible that I did vote Labour (one of the handful in the constituency where I live – If the Tories were to lose it they would probably be struggling to get very far into double figures).

[KerrAvon]

Hyperbole as ever, when it suits you Kerr. You can opinions of the ifs are worth listening to. But you have to do what always criticise others of not doing : examine their opinions critically. You are simply parroting their opinion as fact, as if they are the only source in economics that matters. It simply isn't true. It's so ironic that you so unthinking and obviously so what you continually mock others for doing.

Harsh. I read the stuff the IFS puts out, consider it, test its logic and generally agree with it. I work with evidence every day and thinking critically is critical to my job. In your mind, I agree with something that criticises Labour so that must mean that I haven't considered it critically. Your belief in your own superiority shows through once again…

Ok, you didn't mention ‘mouthpieces of the bourgeois hegemony', but only because that is so 20th century.

[WanChaiMiller]

And here's a bit of evidence for you, Wan:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50536205

Yep, like you say a bit of evidence. These are 2 utility companies moving its stock market listing out of the UK. Nationalisation will only effect a small number of companies. Your evidence is not representative of the bigger picture.

They are not relocating the operational side of their business which will remain in the UK (Ive not answered on my claim on Brexit yet - I hope I get a chance over the next 2 weeks - but part of my comment is to be that brexit would cause companies to move the operational side of the business out of the UK). We had the discussion on the effects of tax increases before. I said then there are a number of factors that come into play* - location being the key. In this situation location means these 2 companies will continue to trade in the UK.

Utility companies are in a priviledged position supplying essentials. Privatisation by Thatcher (selling our assets at knockdown prices to buy votes) was on pretence that it would give ordinary people the chance to gain wealth by owning shares - the reality showed rich fundholders to get richer. Re-nationalisation of these utilities will add real wealth to the people.

Its the over 55's that bought into the Thatcher lie now realise it was a once in a lifetime sell off. They have seen their kids are suffering to make ends meet as a result. They refuse to blame themselves for voting Tory in the 80s and so aimed their anger at the EU.

[WanChaiMiller]

This Tory government has 14 million of us living in poverty (according to new research by the Social Metrics Commission). "The research by the Social Metrics Commission (SMC) found that 14.2 million people were living in poverty under the new measure, of which 4.5 million were children and 1.4 million were people of pension age.

There is nothing in the Tory manifesto that will do anything to change it.

The only policy is a guarantee of leaving the EU - which will potentially make it worse (according many brexiteers there will be an economic dip on leaving the EU). Bear in mind this dip will be off the back of a major recession in 2008 followed by 10 years of Tory auserity.

The depth of the Brexit dip, length and damage is yet to be discovered - Rees Moggs says it will take 50 years to see the economic benefit of leaving the EU.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8540941.html

[KerrAvon]

Yep, like you say a bit of evidence. These are 2 utility companies moving its stock market listing out of the UK. Nationalisation will only effect a small number of companies. Your evidence is not representative of the bigger picture.

They are not relocating the operational side of their business which will remain in the UK (Ive not answered on my claim on Brexit yet - I hope I get a chance over the next 2 weeks - but part of my comment is to be that brexit would cause companies to move the operational side of the business out of the UK). We had the discussion on the effects of tax increases before. I said then there are a number of factors that come into play* - location being the key. In this situation location means these 2 companies will continue to trade in the UK.

Utility companies are in a priviledged position supplying essentials. Privatisation by Thatcher (selling our assets at knockdown prices to buy votes) was on pretence that it would give ordinary people the chance to gain wealth by owning shares - the reality showed rich fundholders to get richer. Re-nationalisation of these utilities will add real wealth to the people.

Its the over 55's that bought into the Thatcher lie now realise it was a once in a lifetime sell off. They have seen their kids are suffering to make ends meet as a result. They refuse to blame themselves for voting Tory in the 80s and so aimed their anger at the EU.

It would be difficult for companies selling gas and electricity in the UK to move the operational side of their businesses out of the UK, as neither can be sent by post. The move by the two companies is instructive, however, is it confirms (if confirmation were needed) that companies will react to Labours plans when they take the view that their shareholders will be adversely affected by them. For companies that are not tied to the UK market, moving their entire operation out of the UK will inevitably considered. As I have repeatedly said, I am yet to encounter any reasoned response to that. All I seem to get is the forensic equivalent of people clamping their hands over their eyes and muttering ‘it won’t happen’ over and over again.

Labour are threatening a 10% nationalisation of every UK public company with 250 or more employees. There tax hikes will take overall corporate taxation to the highest in the G7 and to a level significantly higher than Germany and France. The risk in that is blindingly obvious and no amount of ‘it won’t happen’ muttering is going to mitigate it.

I see that you want to go back thirty five years or so again. The sell offs made a few quid for those members of the public who had the cash to buy in and, in some instances the foresight to sell fairly quickly. Because they tend to provide fairly strong cash flows, the shares have become popular choices for pension funds. I don’t think the sell offs were designed to buy votes . It was more an ideological decision that running companies supplying electric, gas, airports, telephone services etc, was not the function of government.

Are you suggesting that people who supported Thatcher did not realise that the sell offs were one off events? I’d like to think that most people, irrespective of their political persuasion, would appreciate that the utilities etc. could only be sold once. What do you mean by your comment? I don’t understand why you feel that the sells offs is making their kids suffer today. What do you mean?

[ragingpup]

Harsh. I read the stuff the IFS puts out, consider it, test its logic and generally agree with it. I work with evidence every day and thinking critically is critical to my job. In your mind, I agree with something that criticises Labour so that must mean that I haven't considered it critically. Your belief in your own superiority shows through once again…

Ok, you didn't mention ‘mouthpieces of the bourgeois hegemony', but only because that is so 20th century.

I'm only using those terms here as you use them so liberally with others. Do you not think that when you attack others for unthinking agreement with anything you happen to disagree with, you come over just a tad superior too?