O/T - general election 2019

[CASPER-64-FRANK]

Well just in case Labour win:-...BIG LOL, BIG LOL

"Two top energy firms say they have moved ownership of their UK operations overseas to protect themselves from Labour's nationalisation plans.

In recent months, National Grid has opened offshore holding companies in Hong Kong and Luxembourg, while SSE has incorporated in Switzerland"


Yeah, easy peasy is this nationalisation

Just read your first line.

[ragingpup]

Message for Kerr – no time to whizz through to find your posts. I said I’d link to economists who were supportive of the labour manifesto. A quick whizz now finds three:

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...eology-economy

https://www.newstatesman.com/politic...s-credible-too

https://www.thecanary.co/trending/20...ur-propaganda/

You say you read the Guardian? I’m amazed you don’t get a more balanced view in there as there have been several articles that have spoken for the Labour manifesto, as well as against. But I agree with earlier comments on here from other posters that you can only look on both manifestos through the filter of your own ideologies, and it seems blinkered to not recognise that. No one, including the IFS can predict how the markets and business will react to such moves. You can suppress wages, but justify that to your workers? You can raise prices, but justify that to your customers when competitors will seek to take advantage. In these cases, the market economy can help check such basic responses.

It is a very ambitious manifesto, and not without risks. I would prefer a more modest advancement from the 2017 manifesto as I’ve already said, I think that Labour made it too easy to be attacked on the manifesto. In saying that, even modest wealth redistribution proposals would still be rabidly attacked so not sure how much difference it makes. I would like more people to be contributing more towards the tax increases, but we have seen that this isn’t electorally successful, so is a non-starter. But we still then have a choice: either continue with more of the same, keep getting what we always get; look at the country and towns we see around us and decide if we need and want a fairer economy and better funded services and if so, then look at the manifestos to see which one we feel is likely to have an impact towards the country and towns that we want to see. The only real certainty, looking at the Tory manifesto is more of the same, no plans to deal with service decline, social care provision, homelessness, poverty.

Re: Labour’s plans relating to economic neighbours, this article compares state size, spending and services between a low state/tax economy in the USA and an opposite in Sweden: https://www.theguardian.com/business...look-at-Sweden arguing that, despite the IFS inability to see anything other than the neo-liberal ideology, that economies with higher tax and state presence can prosper economically.

[KerrAvon]

Message for Kerr – no time to whizz through to find your posts. I said I’d link to economists who were supportive of the labour manifesto. A quick whizz now finds three:

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...eology-economy

https://www.newstatesman.com/politic...s-credible-too

https://www.thecanary.co/trending/20...ur-propaganda/

You say you read the Guardian? I’m amazed you don’t get a more balanced view in there as there have been several articles that have spoken for the Labour manifesto, as well as against. But I agree with earlier comments on here from other posters that you can only look on both manifestos through the filter of your own ideologies, and it seems blinkered to not recognise that. No one, including the IFS can predict how the markets and business will react to such moves. You can suppress wages, but justify that to your workers? You can raise prices, but justify that to your customers when competitors will seek to take advantage. In these cases, the market economy can help check such basic responses.

It is a very ambitious manifesto, and not without risks. I would prefer a more modest advancement from the 2017 manifesto as I’ve already said, I think that Labour made it too easy to be attacked on the manifesto. In saying that, even modest wealth redistribution proposals would still be rabidly attacked so not sure how much difference it makes. I would like more people to be contributing more towards the tax increases, but we have seen that this isn’t electorally successful, so is a non-starter. But we still then have a choice: either continue with more of the same, keep getting what we always get; look at the country and towns we see around us and decide if we need and want a fairer economy and better funded services and if so, then look at the manifestos to see which one we feel is likely to have an impact towards the country and towns that we want to see. The only real certainty, looking at the Tory manifesto is more of the same, no plans to deal with service decline, social care provision, homelessness, poverty.

Re: Labour’s plans relating to economic neighbours, this article compares state size, spending and services between a low state/tax economy in the USA and an opposite in Sweden: https://www.theguardian.com/business...look-at-Sweden arguing that, despite the IFS inability to see anything other than the neo-liberal ideology, that economies with higher tax and state presence can prosper economically.

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.

[WanChaiMiller]

Well just in case Labour win:-

"Two top energy firms say they have moved ownership of their UK operations overseas to protect themselves from Labour's nationalisation plans.

In recent months, National Grid has opened offshore holding companies in Hong Kong and Luxembourg, while SSE has incorporated in Switzerland"


Yeah, easy peasy is this nationalisation

Yet when companies threaten the same thing re Brexit its scare mongering.

[CASPER-64-FRANK]

Message for Kerr – no time to whizz through to find your posts. I said I’d link to economists who were supportive of the labour manifesto. A quick whizz now finds three:

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...eology-economy

https://www.newstatesman.com/politic...s-credible-too

https://www.thecanary.co/trending/20...ur-propaganda/

You say you read the Guardian? I’m amazed you don’t get a more balanced view in there as there have been several articles that have spoken for the Labour manifesto, as well as against. But I agree with earlier comments on here from other posters that you can only look on both manifestos through the filter of your own ideologies, and it seems blinkered to not recognise that. No one, including the IFS can predict how the markets and business will react to such moves. You can suppress wages, but justify that to your workers? You can raise prices, but justify that to your customers when competitors will seek to take advantage. In these cases, the market economy can help check such basic responses.

It is a very ambitious manifesto, and not without risks. I would prefer a more modest advancement from the 2017 manifesto as I’ve already said, I think that Labour made it too easy to be attacked on the manifesto. In saying that, even modest wealth redistribution proposals would still be rabidly attacked so not sure how much difference it makes. I would like more people to be contributing more towards the tax increases, but we have seen that this isn’t electorally successful, so is a non-starter. But we still then have a choice: either continue with more of the same, keep getting what we always get; look at the country and towns we see around us and decide if we need and want a fairer economy and better funded services and if so, then look at the manifestos to see which one we feel is likely to have an impact towards the country and towns that we want to see. The only real certainty, looking at the Tory manifesto is more of the same, no plans to deal with service decline, social care provision, homelessness, poverty.

Re: Labour’s plans relating to economic neighbours, this article compares state size, spending and services between a low state/tax economy in the USA and an opposite in Sweden: https://www.theguardian.com/business...look-at-Sweden arguing that, despite the IFS inability to see anything other than the neo-liberal ideology, that economies with higher tax and state presence can prosper economically.

It isn’t a Tory Manifesto ragingpup,
It’s more like a November budget announcement, very little substance in it, apart from Get Brexit Done.
Even the 50k new nurses is an untruth.

Soon be 13th December.

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

It isn’t a Tory Manifesto ragingpup,
It’s more like a November budget announcement, very little substance in it, apart from Get Brexit Done.
Even the 50k new nurses is an untruth.

Soon be 13th December.

Yes that's exactly what it is.

They should have taken a leaf out of the Labour and Lib Dem's book and promised things that they couldn't afford nor deliver.

[CASPER-64-FRANK]

Yes that's exactly what it is.

They should have taken a leaf out of the Labour and Lib Dem's book and promised things that they couldn't afford nor deliver.

It’s called playing it safe and not dropping a clanger like Theresa May did.
Makes me wonder if Labour actually want to win this election or sit it out for another 4 / 5 years.

[Silly-miller]

The problem with Labour is the better Labour MP’s are on the backbenches, and they’re still celebrating losing the 2017 Election.
They need a reality check and ought to go door knocking and ask Joe Public why they’re not prepared to vote Labour.

I agree with you on this mate the front bench on labour is a ****ing joke all of them remainers and not one pro brexit supporter how can they negotiate a deal. If labour really believes in putting it to people (which I’m against) they need mps like Sarah champion, Caroline flint and graham stringer.

I know people will say it’s not just about who’s on front bench but it really is they are the one driving the bus the other mps are the passengers who come along for the ride

[Exiletyke]

I agree with you on this mate the front bench on labour is a ****ing joke all of them remainers and not one pro brexit supporter how can they negotiate a deal. If labour really believes in putting it to people (which I’m against) they need mps like Sarah champion, Caroline flint and graham stringer.

I know people will say it’s not just about who’s on front bench but it really is they are the one driving the bus the other mps are the passengers who come along for the ride

How many leavers were on Mays front bench? Just remind me

[WanChaiMiller]

Only one way to get out of the EU prison and that is to back Boris's deal.No other party wants to back the democratic will of the people and more delay would mean more uncertainty and huge risk of jobs.By trying to offer billions to entice the voters their credibility to govern is losing support.People know, you cannot throw money away like that.We owe it to our kids and grandkids,they would never forgive us if we failed to deliver.

Mays deal that Boris voted against twice.