Snap General Election called

[Puja]

Anyone with a pension fund planning on retiring any time soon....eg me....should be turning it into cash about now, assuming Labour get any sniff of power.

Personally, I'm not convinced government run anything will be better than what exists today, there's not a great deal of proof in the UK that this will be the case, unless I've missed something.

While I'm not sure I endorse this broadband plan, there is quite a bit of evidence that government run things can work better when it comes to national infrastructure where the primary emphasis isn't profit. RAILTRACK springs immediately to mind.

Broadband could be another example. There is no profit-based motivation for Openreach to roll out full fibre. It costs them a lot of money and the benefits that it brings won't be in a form that earns them profit. Even when government-incentivised to do so, they will do so in cities because that with get them the most return for their outlay, not rural areas where it's more needed and where the economy gets a bigger return for the outlay.

Like I said, I'm not sure if it's something I'd be leading with or doing in this fashion, but if we want widespread full fibre broadband and the (putative) economic benefits that that brings, it does feel like a national project rather than one to leave to the private sector.

Puja

Network Rail? The cause of a great deal of angst from passengers, even if they blame the operators. Basket case.

But what is notable is the complete lack of fatal crashes due to avoidable material failures during their tenure.

Puja

[Banquo]

While I'm not sure I endorse this broadband plan, there is quite a bit of evidence that government run things can work better when it comes to national infrastructure where the primary emphasis isn't profit. RAILTRACK springs immediately to mind.

Broadband could be another example. There is no profit-based motivation for Openreach to roll out full fibre. It costs them a lot of money and the benefits that it brings won't be in a form that earns them profit. Even when government-incentivised to do so, they will do so in cities because that with get them the most return for their outlay, not rural areas where it's more needed and where the economy gets a bigger return for the outlay.

Like I said, I'm not sure if it's something I'd be leading with or doing in this fashion, but if we want widespread full fibre broadband and the (putative) economic benefits that that brings, it does feel like a national project rather than one to leave to the private sector.

Puja

Network Rail? The cause of a great deal of angst from passengers, even if they blame the operators. Basket case.

But what is notable is the complete lack of fatal crashes due to avoidable material failures during their tenure.

Puja

Very fair point. I don’t think it’s fair to blame Railtrack profit motive though; decades of underinvestment is what they faced- more fool them for taking it on, one could argue- but it’s undeniable they failed in a number of areas. Network Rail may be better, but a low bar.

On giving broadband away- just looks like destroying the industry- existing providers won’t do it for nothing, so the govt would be both network provider and ISP. Weird, but then they are going to become a pharmaceutical manufacturer as well. Tractors next I assume

[Puja]

Network Rail? The cause of a great deal of angst from passengers, even if they blame the operators. Basket case.

But what is notable is the complete lack of fatal crashes due to avoidable material failures during their tenure.

Puja

Very fair point. I don’t think it’s fair to blame Railtrack profit motive though; decades of underinvestment is what they faced- more fool them for taking it on, one could argue- but it’s undeniable they failed in a number of areas. Network Rail may be better, but a low bar.

On giving broadband away- just looks like destroying the industry- existing providers won’t do it for nothing, so the govt would be both network provider and ISP. Weird, but then they are going to become a pharmaceutical manufacturer as well. Tractors next I assume

Who cares if Nissan pull out of Sunderland - British Cars will take up the slack!

That is the bit of the broadband that doesn't sit right with me. I can completely understand taking over the infrastructure - that's a bit where competition cannot improve things and putting it through the private sector actively hinders the best results - however, I don't see why they have to get involved as an ISP. That's a fully functioning and effective market, which (generally) serves customers well. I don't see why you'd want to screw with that.

Puja

[Digby]

But what is notable is the complete lack of fatal crashes due to avoidable material failures during their tenure.

Puja

Very fair point. I don’t think it’s fair to blame Railtrack profit motive though; decades of underinvestment is what they faced- more fool them for taking it on, one could argue- but it’s undeniable they failed in a number of areas. Network Rail may be better, but a low bar.

On giving broadband away- just looks like destroying the industry- existing providers won’t do it for nothing, so the govt would be both network provider and ISP. Weird, but then they are going to become a pharmaceutical manufacturer as well. Tractors next I assume

Who cares if Nissan pull out of Sunderland - British Cars will take up the slack!

That is the bit of the broadband that doesn't sit right with me. I can completely understand taking over the infrastructure - that's a bit where competition cannot improve things and putting it through the private sector actively hinders the best results - however, I don't see why they have to get involved as an ISP. That's a fully functioning and effective market, which (generally) serves customers well. I don't see why you'd want to screw with that.

Puja

Why can't competition improve the infrastructure? We're supposing if we go with a central command economy take on the infrastructure that the infrastructure itself will stay relevant, and that simply cannot be the case in IT. Private firms looking for access points into the market will fundamentally change what the market supplies in areas like this, so I just don't get the one size fits all approach even before it's one being guided by Jeremy Corbyn who cannot possibly understand what's being talked about in this area

If they want to look at how BT supplies to the market and to competitor companies that's fine, worthwhile even, but it's also trickier and harder to make a headline out of such an approach

[Mellsblue]

I don't see why they have to get involved as an ISP. That's a fully functioning and effective market, which (generally) serves customers well. I don't see why you'd want to screw with that.

Puja

Ideology.

[Banquo]

Very fair point. I don’t think it’s fair to blame Railtrack profit motive though; decades of underinvestment is what they faced- more fool them for taking it on, one could argue- but it’s undeniable they failed in a number of areas. Network Rail may be better, but a low bar.

On giving broadband away- just looks like destroying the industry- existing providers won’t do it for nothing, so the govt would be both network provider and ISP. Weird, but then they are going to become a pharmaceutical manufacturer as well. Tractors next I assume

Who cares if Nissan pull out of Sunderland - British Cars will take up the slack!

That is the bit of the broadband that doesn't sit right with me. I can completely understand taking over the infrastructure - that's a bit where competition cannot improve things and putting it through the private sector actively hinders the best results - however, I don't see why they have to get involved as an ISP. That's a fully functioning and effective market, which (generally) serves customers well. I don't see why you'd want to screw with that.

Puja

Why can't competition improve the infrastructure? We're supposing if we go with a central command economy take on the infrastructure that the infrastructure itself will stay relevant, and that simply cannot be the case in IT. Private firms looking for access points into the market will fundamentally change what the market supplies in areas like this, so I just don't get the one size fits all approach even before it's one being guided by Jeremy Corbyn who cannot possibly understand what's being talked about in this area

If they want to look at how BT supplies to the market and to competitor companies that's fine, worthwhile even, but it's also trickier and harder to make a headline out of such an approach

The likes of City Fibre will be v grumpy....

[Banquo]

You think it'd be worse than Brexit for your pension?

yep.

Why? (Honest question)

Wrote a long answer which was lost; but basically, don’t know what Brexit is- and won’t know under Boris for years, and the cos mine and many other pension funds are built on are those most resilient to even a hard Brexit. Conversely an awful lot of these good dividend/good growth shares will be replaced - best case - by low yield, zero growth govt bonds (I assume, could be wrong) which will be issued at well below current ‘value’ judging by how Labour have articulated it. So if I did nothing, or the fund managers did nothing, that’d be a massive hit; hence talking about converting to cash....and then having to find other ways to make my pension savings work- and this is money I have saved myself for investment into a personal pension. So it’s quite a threat for me- unless I have utterly misunderstood. The consequences of their proposals reach much further than simply ‘borrowing’, which at the level even low end estimates look like are a bit of an issue.

[Puja]

Very fair point. I don’t think it’s fair to blame Railtrack profit motive though; decades of underinvestment is what they faced- more fool them for taking it on, one could argue- but it’s undeniable they failed in a number of areas. Network Rail may be better, but a low bar.

On giving broadband away- just looks like destroying the industry- existing providers won’t do it for nothing, so the govt would be both network provider and ISP. Weird, but then they are going to become a pharmaceutical manufacturer as well. Tractors next I assume

Who cares if Nissan pull out of Sunderland - British Cars will take up the slack!

That is the bit of the broadband that doesn't sit right with me. I can completely understand taking over the infrastructure - that's a bit where competition cannot improve things and putting it through the private sector actively hinders the best results - however, I don't see why they have to get involved as an ISP. That's a fully functioning and effective market, which (generally) serves customers well. I don't see why you'd want to screw with that.

Puja

Why can't competition improve the infrastructure? We're supposing if we go with a central command economy take on the infrastructure that the infrastructure itself will stay relevant, and that simply cannot be the case in IT. Private firms looking for access points into the market will fundamentally change what the market supplies in areas like this, so I just don't get the one size fits all approach even before it's one being guided by Jeremy Corbyn who cannot possibly understand what's being talked about in this area

If they want to look at how BT supplies to the market and to competitor companies that's fine, worthwhile even, but it's also trickier and harder to make a headline out of such an approach

Because it's very hard to have competition in building nationwide infrastructure like this. You can't have meaningful customer choice of who digs up the road to put the fibre in and, even if you do a competitive tendering system, a la the railways, that's still pretty statist and you still have the issue of everyone wanting to supply London and nobody wanting to supply Lothian.

How would you organise rolling out fibre to >95% of the country on a competition basis? (Genuine question for your opinion, not rhetorical sarkiness)

[Digby]

Who cares if Nissan pull out of Sunderland - British Cars will take up the slack!

That is the bit of the broadband that doesn't sit right with me. I can completely understand taking over the infrastructure - that's a bit where competition cannot improve things and putting it through the private sector actively hinders the best results - however, I don't see why they have to get involved as an ISP. That's a fully functioning and effective market, which (generally) serves customers well. I don't see why you'd want to screw with that.

Puja

Why can't competition improve the infrastructure? We're supposing if we go with a central command economy take on the infrastructure that the infrastructure itself will stay relevant, and that simply cannot be the case in IT. Private firms looking for access points into the market will fundamentally change what the market supplies in areas like this, so I just don't get the one size fits all approach even before it's one being guided by Jeremy Corbyn who cannot possibly understand what's being talked about in this area

If they want to look at how BT supplies to the market and to competitor companies that's fine, worthwhile even, but it's also trickier and harder to make a headline out of such an approach

Because it's very hard to have competition in building nationwide infrastructure like this. You can't have meaningful customer choice of who digs up the road to put the fibre in and, even if you do a competitive tendering system, a la the railways, that's still pretty statist and you still have the issue of everyone wanting to supply London and nobody wanting to supply Lothian.

How would you organise rolling out fibre to >95% of the country on a competition basis? (Genuine question for your opinion, not rhetorical sarkiness)

In the here and now it's about setting minimum targets for private firms that are sensible and useful, but longer term the future might not see us needing to dig up anything, the infrastructure 20 years from now might well have nothing to do with today's infrastructure, but if you take away private innovation you'll end up with a drive to use that centrally determined infrastructure even if (when) it ends up being horribly inefficient. That's not for any especially nice reason, it's merely that private firms that get the direction of the market wrong will fail, and thus given the state will not (quite sensibly) be allowed to fail the state cannot possibly compete for efficiency.

I do get why they don't want to deal with regulatory oversight, it's boring, detailed work that no one will really thank them for even if they get it right and it isn't going to capture many votes, but it is what politicians should be getting stuck into. I also get why the left of Labour are interested in taking private firms into public ownership, but some of their thinking on this, like that they'll determine a fair price in parliament without perhaps reference to the market and/or shareholders is exactly one of the concerns I have with Corbyn and those of a similar ilk

[Sandydragon]

If there Is one company that it is hard to feel sympathy for its Openreach.

[Mellsblue]

Vicious rumours doing the rounds that Lab have their maths horribly wrong over annual maintenance costs. Not enough in pure ££££ terms to make a even a slight dent in UK PLC but big enough in %%% terms to make you worry what other balls up they might make.
Not sure how much the Conservatives can go after it given their lack of financial rigour of late but it might play to the narrative that Lab can’t be trusted with the economy. It might also play to the line of thought that Labour come up with a policy and try and make figures fit, rather than making policy for the economic reality.

[Sandydragon]

Compared to the economic impact of nationalisation, it’s probably small fry anyway and won’t do any more harm to labours chances. You either like their stance on the economy or you hate it and this probably won’t change too many opinions

[Mikey Brown]

Who fucking cares. Money isn’t a real thing anyway.

[Stom]

I'll be honest, the presence of Len McClusky is a real turnoff for a Labour vote.

Which begs the question: Why doesn't the UK have a real new party? One that stands for humanist values and is apart from trade unions, who are, let's be frank, behind the times.

Because I mainly agree with a lot of Labour policy but the "old white man socialism" is not really necessarily a good thing.

But, hey, I have more pressing concerns over here as the Viktator is looking to ban my kids' school... So there's a chance for me to be on the move soon...

[Son of Mathonwy]

I'll be honest, the presence of Len McClusky is a real turnoff for a Labour vote.

Which begs the question: Why doesn't the UK have a real new party? One that stands for humanist values and is apart from trade unions, who are, let's be frank, behind the times.

Because I mainly agree with a lot of Labour policy but the "old white man socialism" is not really necessarily a good thing.

It would be great and would get my vote.

Unfortunately it would have no brand loyalty and would probably be as successful as Change UK. (In fact, it might actually be Change UK.)

We need PR. Until then our best hope for humanism lies with Labour. Shame about the unions tho...

[Mellsblue]

I'll be honest, the presence of Len McClusky is a real turnoff for a Labour vote.

Which begs the question: Why doesn't the UK have a real new party? One that stands for humanist values and is apart from trade unions, who are, let's be frank, behind the times.

Because I mainly agree with a lot of Labour policy but the "old white man socialism" is not really necessarily a good thing.

It would be great and would get my vote.

Unfortunately it would have no brand loyalty and would probably be as successful as Change UK. (In fact, it might actually be Change UK.)

We need PR. Until then our best hope for humanism lies with Labour. Shame about the unions tho...

What do you two mean when you say ‘humanist values’ and ‘humanism’ with regards a political party?

[Stom]

I'll be honest, the presence of Len McClusky is a real turnoff for a Labour vote.

Which begs the question: Why doesn't the UK have a real new party? One that stands for humanist values and is apart from trade unions, who are, let's be frank, behind the times.

Because I mainly agree with a lot of Labour policy but the "old white man socialism" is not really necessarily a good thing.

It would be great and would get my vote.

Unfortunately it would have no brand loyalty and would probably be as successful as Change UK. (In fact, it might actually be Change UK.)

We need PR. Until then our best hope for humanism lies with Labour. Shame about the unions tho...

What do you two mean when you say ‘humanist values’ and ‘humanism’ with regards a political party?

For me, placing the personal freedom and advancement of the individual first based on fact based, research led policy.

So every individual should be given an equal chance to achieve, even though every individual cannot possibly have equality of outcome.

I lean slightly socialist, so I would propose a PAYE tax system similar to the UK now, but with a much higher freshold when you don’t pay income tax. Offset with changing up corporate tax to reduce legal avoidance. Point of consumption taxes and revenue taxes for child companies whose parents are in a blacklist of tax havens including Ireland and Luxembourg.

Other features are the provision of essential services for free or subsidized. Transport, mail, health, education and even current account banking, which should be provided free of charge.

Ok, this has turned into my personal manifesto a little. Let’s just say that it believes that the advancement of the individual is the best way to advance the country. Which probably means the biggest budget should go to Education,

[Mellsblue]

It would be great and would get my vote.

Unfortunately it would have no brand loyalty and would probably be as successful as Change UK. (In fact, it might actually be Change UK.)

We need PR. Until then our best hope for humanism lies with Labour. Shame about the unions tho...

What do you two mean when you say ‘humanist values’ and ‘humanism’ with regards a political party?

For me, placing the personal freedom and advancement of the individual first based on fact based, research led policy.

So every individual should be given an equal chance to achieve, even though every individual cannot possibly have equality of outcome.

I lean slightly socialist, so I would propose a PAYE tax system similar to the UK now, but with a much higher freshold when you don’t pay income tax. Offset with changing up corporate tax to reduce legal avoidance. Point of consumption taxes and revenue taxes for child companies whose parents are in a blacklist of tax havens including Ireland and Luxembourg.

Other features are the provision of essential services for free or subsidized. Transport, mail, health, education and even current account banking, which should be provided free of charge.

Ok, this has turned into my personal manifesto a little. Let’s just say that it believes that the advancement of the individual is the best way to advance the country. Which probably means the biggest budget should go to Education,

Cheers. I agree with your last sentence 99%. Remove ‘probably’ and it would 100%.

[Digby]

My big issue with corporation tax isn't the avoidance, though that's a concern (and one we'd be better off addressing as an EU member) but rather what's the intent of it? In essence the tax seeks to levy profitable business, and that's a little weird, it's basically taxing the good to subsidy the bad, and that's an odd way to push change across society. It's not as simple as merely moving to more of a transaction tax Vs a profit based on as you could easily bury many more startups, and they struggle enough anyway, and you have businesses that might have fallow years but are still good businesses, nonetheless seeking to tax achievement and promote failure at a business level is surely the wrong way to even start to go about things

[Stom]

My big issue with corporation tax isn't the avoidance, though that's a concern (and one we'd be better off addressing as an EU member) but rather what's the intent of it? In essence the tax seeks to levy profitable business, and that's a little weird, it's basically taxing the good to subsidy the bad, and that's an odd way to push change across society. It's not as simple as merely moving to more of a transaction tax Vs a profit based on as you could easily bury many more startups, and they struggle enough anyway, and you have businesses that might have fallow years but are still good businesses, nonetheless seeking to tax achievement and promote failure at a business level is surely the wrong way to even start to go about things

Well, the original intent was to allow companies to grow as a means to pay more wages...

Corporation tax was originally at, what 70% 80%?

Sometimes even 100%!

Because it was thought the profit would be taken out in wages.

A company shouldn't exist to make profit. A company should exist to create the product or service it creates. And therefore any profit should be reinvested into improving the product or service.

But we don't live in capitalism anymore, we live in neo-capitalism.

But a profit tax doesn't work anymore because of tax-havens and so on.

So I would just start a tax haven tax. If your company is doing business in the UK, but the HQ or parent company is in one of the blacklisted tax-havens, you pay a large revenue tax %age.

If your HQ or parent company is in the UK, you pay corp. tax as normal.

This is one thing I kinda agree with the Brexiteers about: the UK is a country of 70m+ relatively rich people. Major corps will find a way to profitably serve those people, even if their profit margins are smaller than for the US.

And, yes, I know it would increase prices. But it wouldn't increase prices for UK alternatives, which would boost the economy.

[Puja]

This is one thing I kinda agree with the Brexiteers about: the UK is a country of 70m+ relatively rich people. Major corps will find a way to profitably serve those people, even if their profit margins are smaller than for the US.

And, yes, I know it would increase prices. But it wouldn't increase prices for UK alternatives, which would boost the economy.

I think you're underestimating the interconnectivity of it - there's no such thing as a purely UK alternative as everything relies on stuff from somewhere else. The reason for that is that it's more efficient and thus cheaper to import things that we're not specialised in and if we tried to get everything 100% from the UK, then we'd push prices up *lots*.

You're right that corps will generally want to sell to us, but if our currency's worth bugger all, it's expensive to import, and 50m of the 70m are in households with shit incomes, then they'll look for easier profits elsewhere.

Puja

[Digby]

If the profit from a company is removed in wages, or dividend, or return of capital then by all means tax it. I've no issue with that or with progressive taxation at the individual level, I do however question the virtue of putting a handbrake on successful corporations with a tax on company profits because that encourages bad companies and penalises successful ones, and it's the successful ones more likely to hire and invest over time

I'm really not sure what to say to the idea a company shouldn't make a profit, imo that's the only reason to run one else you've got a charity

[Puja]

If the profit from a company is removed in wages, or dividend, or return of capital then by all means tax it. I've no issue with that or with progressive taxation at the individual level, I do however question the virtue of putting a handbrake on successful corporations with a tax on company profits because that encourages bad companies and penalises successful ones, and it's the successful ones more likely to hire and invest over time

I'm really not sure what to say to the idea a company shouldn't make a profit, imo that's the only reason to run one else you've got a charity

In economics, the word "profit" refers to two different things. The first is ordinary profit, which is the amount that is required to make it worthwhile running a business - the amount below which you would shut it down and call it a day. The second is extraordinary profit, which is the figure above that.

It's why the arguments against raising the minimum wage never bear fruit in the real world - it cuts into extraordinary profit, but (unless raised to silly levels) rarely cuts into ordinary profit.

Puja

[Digby]

I confess I don't recall taking of ordinary and extraordinary profits, and actually extraordinary profit seems a clunky and potentially misleading term if that's how it's used, but I'm many years removed from any study in field. I'm also not sure how that comment sits alongside my comment around my dislike for corporation tax restricting economic growth by impeding profitable companies

[Mellsblue]

If the profit from a company is removed in wages, or dividend, or return of capital then by all means tax it. I've no issue with that or with progressive taxation at the individual level, I do however question the virtue of putting a handbrake on successful corporations with a tax on company profits because that encourages bad companies and penalises successful ones, and it's the successful ones more likely to hire and invest over time

I'm really not sure what to say to the idea a company shouldn't make a profit, imo that's the only reason to run one else you've got a charity

In economics, the word "profit" refers to two different things. The first is ordinary profit, which is the amount that is required to make it worthwhile running a business - the amount below which you would shut it down and call it a day. The second is extraordinary profit, which is the figure above that.

It's why the arguments against raising the minimum wage never bear fruit in the real world - it cuts into extraordinary profit, but (unless raised to silly levels) rarely cuts into ordinary profit.

Puja

Is this true about the minimum wage rarely cutting into ordinary profits. Those sectors that employ a large % of people on those wages - care providers, retail etc - are struggling in part because of this. This is particularly true in the care sector where raising minimum wages is probably the main cause of problems. Though, that opens up another issue about coughing up enough in tax/organising the health and care sectors to properly fund the provision and the staff within it. It’s also true that local govt have had to significantly raise their wage bill and therefore divert funds from other areas to cover it.
I’m also not sure extraordinary profits, within reason, are a bad thing. It’s where the funding for R&D, staff training, expansion etc etc comes from.
Don’t get me wrong, the minimum wage is nowhere near the disaster many on the right predicted. However, I don’t think it’s true that it ‘rarely’ cuts into profit. Also don’t get me wrong about whether it’s a good idea, I think it’s great and should go further. I’ll never understand why the state tops up people’s wages because their employer doesn’t pay them enough.