Snap General Election called

[Puja]

Can't tax what people don't have and doubt the interest rates on borrowing will be all that kind either.

No, no, no. They’ll tax the super rich because it’s anlie that high earners contribute a huge proportion of our tax income anyway. Then when they all bugger off, it will be anyone earning over 30K who will get walloped. Except for union bosses who can still get council houses.

Then we can borrow a shit load of money to fund the people’s oncome, which will then push up prices and probably result in price controls. Because the Venezuelan expertience has shown that can work.

Oh, and we need to borrow billions to privatise all those services.

Sounds fun.

I love how people leap to Venezuela as the example of how socialism is doomed to fail. Yes, let's go straight to a third world country whose economy was solely based on oil exporting, with a leader who was a little bit strange at the beginning and went further and further bonkers as time went on, and look at them shortly after the oil price plummeted and the value of their economy disappeared. Makes far more sense as a guide than looking at somewhere like Denmark or Sweden to see if socialism is inherently doomed.

Also, as Digby pointed out (possibly facetiously, I can't tell), Labour have suggested funding a lot of their plans by moving the existing quantitive easing away from bond purchases to infrastructure and investment. And will people really be fleeing the country over a tax rise to 45p over £80k and 50p over £123k (from the last manifesto)? I can't see the super rich having to go to Monaco or to foodbanks because of that.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

I’m not so sure that the Scandinavian countries are the example of socialism that Corbyn et al have been preaching for the last few decades.

Scandinavian countries have a good record of redistribution and welfare, but they have also encouraged the market economy to pay for it. Venezuela was becoming a basket case before th drop in oil prices as a result of poor economic decision makin and cronyism. Soft left countries have managed alright when provided with collective security, the record for those further to the left is dire.

And the last time I checked, we have a huge reliance on the financial services, assuming Brexit doesn’t drive them away. The last manifesto might have been fairly restrained, but I don’t believe that either Corbyn of McDonell have changed that much over the years and so I’ll treat that manifesto with suspicion. Many governments have raised taxes that weren’t in their manifesto once they were in government and claimed the situation forced them to do it.

Do you honestly think momentum, after talk of
Privatisation and higher taxes for the rich would be happy to leave it there? Not to mention the trades unions.

[Sandydragon]

I don't get the impression the Dear Leader wants to pay for a programme of renationalisation, and instead seems more inclined to remove state aid and simply say provide the service and if you can't we'll be forced to step in

Or wait for th franchise to end and just not refranchise. I suspect that the likely action is that exp citation will be so high private companies can’t succeed so they will default.

Which isn’t to say all private companies are great. But many provide much better service than British rail ever did and if they can sort out the major annoyance that is rail track then it would be far improved.

[Mellsblue]

Yep. Corbyn and McDonnell’s socialism looks nothing like the Scandinavian model. Also, their model relies a lot more on hammering big corporations than high earners. They will be more than happy to move to Dublin etc and, as Macron has proven with his tax incentives for those relocating from the City, others will actively court them. They will then relocate taking their jobs and tax receipts with them.

[Sandydragon]

Yep. Corbyn and McDonnell’s socialism looks nothing like the Scandinavian model. Also, their model relies a lot more on hammering big corporations than high earners. They will be more than happy to move to Dublin etc and, as Macron has proven with his tax incentives for those relocating from the City, others will actively court them. They will then relocate taking their jobs and tax receipts with them.

Exactly. Corbyn and McDonell provided a manifesto which was designed to calm labours fringe voters. It was several degrees removed from their views over the past decades.

But the point of big business relocating is a serious one and Brexit will cause enough problems without high tax. Would a few extra pence in the pound mark a differenc? It depends on where was cheaper to live compared to income. A Corbyn led labour government allied to hard brexit would cause considerable consternation in business.

[Digby]

Someone either needs to revamp the tax system or secure international cooperation on corporation tax, probably both. But no leading political party wants to be in trouble with the electorate, gutless wankers, though there is I'm not standing for office myself

[Puja]

Yep. Corbyn and McDonnell’s socialism looks nothing like the Scandinavian model. Also, their model relies a lot more on hammering big corporations than high earners. They will be more than happy to move to Dublin etc and, as Macron has proven with his tax incentives for those relocating from the City, others will actively court them. They will then relocate taking their jobs and tax receipts with them.

But the point of big business relocating is a serious one and Brexit will cause enough problems without high tax. Would a few extra pence in the pound mark a differenc? It depends on where was cheaper to live compared to income. A Corbyn led labour government allied to hard brexit would cause considerable consternation in business.

Again, the UK isn't Venezuela - it's not a case of once they're in, they're el Presidente for life and get to send the Army to crush dissidents. The manifesto was several degrees removed from their views, but was the degree that a government would be based off because they would need their MPs onside to actually get anything done and would be unlikely to get reelected by tearing up a manifesto that people voted for and doing their own thing.

Big business relocating very much depends on how things are done -- Ireland already has significantly lower corporation tax than us, but companies don't just go there because there's significant advantages to being in Britain (okay, London) and the size of our market to sell to is much much larger. Without wishing to channel Rees-Mogg, I think there is a danger of talking ourselves down and saying that we don't dare collect corporation tax properly because we're only valuable to people as the cheapest option. Clearly it has to be done carefully and cautiously, but at the moment we seem to have a policy of not properly enforcing corporation tax because otherwise the corporations may leave and take away the tax revenues that they're not paying.

Someone either needs to revamp the tax system or secure international cooperation on corporation tax, probably both. But no leading political party wants to be in trouble with the electorate, gutless wankers, though there is I'm not standing for office myself

Sadly, the hope of the international cooperation died when we stuck two fingers up at the EU. Plus, as you said, everyone's too self-involved to set it up.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

The U.K. currently has one of the lowest corporation tax rates in the developed world and we have a Govt committed to keeping it that way. That is why corps stay. If we suddenly become one of the highest whilst introducing an anti-business model and anti-business executive then corps will move. All of Corbyn and McDonnell’s previous shows that the manifesto is a very thin end of the wedge. I’ve abdolutely no trust in a Corbyn Govt sticking to a manifesto. I never have belief in anyone who has belief that they are righteous and pure, be it left or right or any other at the far end of a spectrum. To assuage cries or Conservative bias, I’d have no confidence in a Rees-Mogg led Conservative Govt sticking to a manifesto - not that I’d be a Conservative in that scenario. Hoping that blue labour MPs will vote a Govt down is like hoping that the ERG will vote down the current Govt or blue labour MPs might go on serious manoeuvres anytime soon, it just doesn’t happen and won’t happen. Corbyn et al know business fright and flight might happen as they’ve war gamed capital flight and a run on the pound.....
All you need to do is look at Hollande’s 75% top tax rate. An utter failure that was dropped within two years.

[Mellsblue]

Has anyone seen the Sunday Times front page today?

Would now be opportune to mention that the only reason this particular Boris issue is in the news is to distract the feeble minded from the utter c**tery of Corbyn?

[Sandydragon]

If Res-Mogg becomes Conservative leader, I won’t be voting for them any time soon.

[Zhivago]

If Res-Mogg becomes Conservative leader, I won’t be voting for them any time soon.

If Rees-Mogg becomes PM then I'll renounce my citizenship.

[Puja]

If Res-Mogg becomes Conservative leader, I won’t be voting for them any time soon.

If Rees-Mogg becomes PM then I'll renounce my citizenship.

I am genuinely terrified by how likely that possibility is at the moment.

Puja

[fivepointer]

Rees-Mogg or Corbyn......

Just what have we done to deserve this.

[Mellsblue]

Rees-Mogg or Corbyn......

Just what have we done to deserve this.

Exactly. We must’ve all been really bad in a former life.

[Peat]

First off, the prospect of Rees-Mogg vs Corbyn is absolute nightmare fuel and please let me bury my head in the sand and pretend there's no way it'll ever happen.

Second... while I've no doubt that Corbyn would like to go further than his most recent manifesto, I've seen a fair number of governments here and there come in promising big changes and struggle to deliver.

I also think that for all the hissing about a tax raise, a modest one wouldn't ruffle too many feathers imo. Particularly if its taxes or Brexit.

Also also, I think a lot of people are slowly coming round to the point of view that our public services can't go on this way and accept you get what you pay for.

[Which Tyler]

Also also, I think a lot of people are slowly coming round to the point of view that our public services can't go on this way and accept you get what you pay for.

I's always been a case of how you frame the argument. Typically if you ask people "we'd like to do XXX (feed the homeless, have an NHS, recycle more plastic, whatever), and it's going to cost £Y.YY per person per year" that question gets a lot of positive responses; if you just ask "we'd like to raise taxes, for stuff" it gets a negative.
The right generally have an upper hand in this, as they just have the same argument for each case; whilst to get approval, the left typically needs to make the case for individual projects, AND find the one that resonates, AND push it to resonate greater than the "but that'll cost £££" counter.

[Mellsblue]

Also also, I think a lot of people are slowly coming round to the point of view that our public services can't go on this way and accept you get what you pay for.

I's always been a case of how you frame the argument. Typically if you ask people "we'd like to do XXX (feed the homeless, have an NHS, recycle more plastic, whatever), and it's going to cost £Y.YY per person per year" that question gets a lot of positive responses; if you just ask "we'd like to raise taxes, for stuff" it gets a negative.
The right generally have an upper hand in this, as they just have the same argument for each case; whilst to get approval, the left typically needs to make the case for individual projects, AND find the one that resonates, AND push it to resonate greater than the "but that'll cost £££" counter.

God forbid anyone should know where their tax money is going and thus get to decide whether they agree. Also, if people knew their money wouldn’t be wasted they would be more inclined to part with it. The numerous examples of public sector waste make people very sceptical.

[Digby]

Also also, I think a lot of people are slowly coming round to the point of view that our public services can't go on this way and accept you get what you pay for.

I's always been a case of how you frame the argument. Typically if you ask people "we'd like to do XXX (feed the homeless, have an NHS, recycle more plastic, whatever), and it's going to cost £Y.YY per person per year" that question gets a lot of positive responses; if you just ask "we'd like to raise taxes, for stuff" it gets a negative.
The right generally have an upper hand in this, as they just have the same argument for each case; whilst to get approval, the left typically needs to make the case for individual projects, AND find the one that resonates, AND push it to resonate greater than the "but that'll cost £££" counter.

God forbid anyone should know where their tax money is going and thus get to decide whether they agree. Also, if people knew their money wouldn’t be wasted they would be more inclined to part with it. The numerous examples of public sector waste make people very sceptical.

There's waste in every spend whether public, corporate or individual

[Mellsblue]

I's always been a case of how you frame the argument. Typically if you ask people "we'd like to do XXX (feed the homeless, have an NHS, recycle more plastic, whatever), and it's going to cost £Y.YY per person per year" that question gets a lot of positive responses; if you just ask "we'd like to raise taxes, for stuff" it gets a negative.
The right generally have an upper hand in this, as they just have the same argument for each case; whilst to get approval, the left typically needs to make the case for individual projects, AND find the one that resonates, AND push it to resonate greater than the "but that'll cost £££" counter.

God forbid anyone should know where their tax money is going and thus get to decide whether they agree. Also, if people knew their money wouldn’t be wasted they would be more inclined to part with it. The numerous examples of public sector waste make people very sceptical.

There's waste in every spend whether public, corporate or individual

I’ve just won £10 off myself.

[Digby]

I’ve just won £10 off myself.

The all new betting system advocated by one J. Corbyn

[Zhivago]

Can't tax what people don't have and doubt the interest rates on borrowing will be all that kind either.

No, no, no. They’ll tax the super rich because it’s anlie that high earners contribute a huge proportion of our tax income anyway. Then when they all bugger off, it will be anyone earning over 30K who will get walloped. Except for union bosses who can still get council houses.

Then we can borrow a shit load of money to fund the people’s oncome, which will then push up prices and probably result in price controls. Because the Venezuelan expertience has shown that can work.

Oh, and we need to borrow billions to privatise all those services.

Sounds fun.

People won't bugger off just cos they have to pay 5 percent higher tax. People with kids in school people with friends in the UK. It's just nonsense.

[canta_brian]

Also also, I think a lot of people are slowly coming round to the point of view that our public services can't go on this way and accept you get what you pay for.

I's always been a case of how you frame the argument. Typically if you ask people "we'd like to do XXX (feed the homeless, have an NHS, recycle more plastic, whatever), and it's going to cost £Y.YY per person per year" that question gets a lot of positive responses; if you just ask "we'd like to raise taxes, for stuff" it gets a negative.
The right generally have an upper hand in this, as they just have the same argument for each case; whilst to get approval, the left typically needs to make the case for individual projects, AND find the one that resonates, AND push it to resonate greater than the "but that'll cost £££" counter.

God forbid anyone should know where their tax money is going and thus get to decide whether they agree. Also, if people knew their money wouldn’t be wasted they would be more inclined to part with it. The numerous examples of public sector waste make people very sceptical.

...numerous examples of public sector waste, blah blah wank wank...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-b ... m-45240742

[Mellsblue]

I's always been a case of how you frame the argument. Typically if you ask people "we'd like to do XXX (feed the homeless, have an NHS, recycle more plastic, whatever), and it's going to cost £Y.YY per person per year" that question gets a lot of positive responses; if you just ask "we'd like to raise taxes, for stuff" it gets a negative.
The right generally have an upper hand in this, as they just have the same argument for each case; whilst to get approval, the left typically needs to make the case for individual projects, AND find the one that resonates, AND push it to resonate greater than the "but that'll cost £££" counter.

God forbid anyone should know where their tax money is going and thus get to decide whether they agree. Also, if people knew their money wouldn’t be wasted they would be more inclined to part with it. The numerous examples of public sector waste make people very sceptical.

...numerous examples of public sector waste, blah blah wank wank...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-b ... m-45240742

That’s another £10.
I’ve worked in both the public and the private sector. I know virtually all the pros and cons of both. Of which there are many for both. As it happens, I don’t think anything should be privatised unless it is open to competition though, knowing both sectors, I’m not dogmatic about it. Just as some academies are great whilst others are hopeless, some local authority education depts are great whilst others are useless. I hate blanket ideological policies whichever party they come from. I also don’t think you can say one system is fatality flawed because of one failing. Afterall, that would mean privatising the NHS after its many failings and the trains were hardly the envy of, well, anywhere when run by the state.
Your whataboutery continues to amaze, though.

[canta_brian]

God forbid anyone should know where their tax money is going and thus get to decide whether they agree. Also, if people knew their money wouldn’t be wasted they would be more inclined to part with it. The numerous examples of public sector waste make people very sceptical.

...numerous examples of public sector waste, blah blah wank wank...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-b ... m-45240742

That’s another £10.
I’ve worked in both the public and the private sector. I know virtually all the pros and cons of both. Of which there are many for both. As it happens, I don’t think anything should be privatised unless it is open to competition though, knowing both sectors, I’m not dogmatic about it. Just as some academies are great whilst others are hopeless, some local authority education depts are great whilst others are useless. I hate blanket ideological policies whichever party they come from. I also don’t think you can say one system is fatality flawed because of one failing. Afterall, that would mean privatising the NHS after its many failings and the trains were hardly the envy of, well, anywhere when run by the state.
Your whataboutery continues to amaze, though.

I could have let you keep your tenner but for the ten I win for your whataboutery comment.

Raising an example that shows an opposite point to yours is not whataboutery. The reason it is not is that, despite your obvious belief to the contrary, your point of view is not Gospel.

You chose to bang on about your pet topic of poor public sector service provision on the day G4s has had a prison taken off them because they can't do a half decent job of running it. It could have been the day the East coast main line railway was taken into public control, or the day Carillon collapsed.

[Mellsblue]

...numerous examples of public sector waste, blah blah wank wank...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-b ... m-45240742

That’s another £10.
I’ve worked in both the public and the private sector. I know virtually all the pros and cons of both. Of which there are many for both. As it happens, I don’t think anything should be privatised unless it is open to competition though, knowing both sectors, I’m not dogmatic about it. Just as some academies are great whilst others are hopeless, some local authority education depts are great whilst others are useless. I hate blanket ideological policies whichever party they come from. I also don’t think you can say one system is fatality flawed because of one failing. Afterall, that would mean privatising the NHS after its many failings and the trains were hardly the envy of, well, anywhere when run by the state.
Your whataboutery continues to amaze, though.

I could have let you keep your tenner but for the ten I win for your whataboutery comment.

Raising an example that shows an opposite point to yours is not whataboutery. The reason it is not is that, despite your obvious belief to the contrary, your point of view is not Gospel.

You chose to bang on about your pet topic of poor public sector service provision on the day G4s has had a prison taken off them because they can't do a half decent job of running it. It could have been the day the East coast main line railway was taken into public control, or the day Carillon collapsed.

For starters, I didn’t ‘bang on’. I said there are numerous examples of public sector wasting money, which there are. That the private sector also wastes money doesn’t erase or even detract from the fact that the public sector wastes money. If I had said ‘there are numerous examples of public sector waste whereas there are none in the private sector’ your point on G4S would’ve been relevant. I didn’t, so it’s not. We were talking about people’s reticence to pay more tax. Public waste is one reason. Similarly, I am reticent to give my money to House of Fraser because they have repeatedly sent me the wrong items from their website. What’s that I hear you cry, “John Lewis make mistakes, too”. “I know”, I reply, “I haven’t said they don’t”.
If anyone wanders on here saying privitisation is perfect and far superior to the public sector in every way, I’ll happily argue with them. I’ll also tell them that I regularly use the East Coast Mainline and the best service I’ve had was when it was run by the Govt at arms length.
I’ll repeat, I don’t think either public sector or private sector are inherently superior. I think each decision should be taken separately, with sectors with competition more likely to be better when privatised and sectors with no competition more likely to be better served when run in the public sector.
Now I am banging on.