Does May want to win?

[Mr D]

The point was an elected representative of the government flippantly glossed over (and if you wanted to argue the extremes did, by inference, endorse) suicide for members of the older generation.
One would expect at least some horror in his response rather than a ho-hum shrug of indifference unless, you know, that's the general attitude of the government he represents...

You can be horrified if you want. Perhaps even have a better answer.
Its not exactly an uncommon response. Unless wanting to ban suicide not sure what else could be done.

 

[Clinton]

The little people will pay their bills by selling their homes, those with money will not. Sounds like a good policy for the country as a whole. Not.

I agree, I'm not excited about this. Unfortunately, the alternative is a party that hasn't got the vaguest idea about money. We're paying in excess of £1 billion a week in interest and they want to go out and borrow tens of billions to splurge on all kinds of giveaways, commit us to even more interest payments and lumber our kids with obscene amounts of national debt.

The UK debt now stands at a mind boggling £1.7 trillion. I dread to think what Corbyn and McDonnell would do to that.

BTW, if you put aside your visceral hatred of the Tories you'll realise that under a Labour government you'll still see that "The little people will pay their bills ....those with money will not."

Why? Because Labour make noises about taxing rich people more but there's sweet bugger all they can do to tax the biggest tax evaders. The only way to get these people to pay is blocking the exits - using the OECD, G20 and other forums to put pressure on tax havens to disclose beneficial ownerships, prevent transferring profit across borders etc - the kind of things that Cameron and Osborne made huge progress on. You don't do it by making a big noise about raising income tax on those earning in excess of £80K. Labour either don't have a clue or they are cynically just playing to the gallery. They have no credible plans on taxing the biggest tax "evaders". No, not no credible plans. They've got no plans at all.

So it'll be the little people and the slightly larger little people (£80K) who'll pay for Labour's chocolate and honey for everybody and a free puppy for Christmas.

 

[Newchodge]

the kind of things that Cameron and Osborne made huge progress on.

YAY they made HUGE progress and achieved absolutely nothing. You must be so proud of them.

 

[Mr D]

McDonnell has said a few times that he will end corporate subsidy. There's a report he's read done by a guy called Farnsworth with a figure of around £97bn a year - its an interesting read if you want to know what he wants to do. Just correct the math as you read it.
You and I and pretty much the entire population will pay more but that's normal when government wants to change things. I'm looking at increased gas bill of £500 as a result... if they got in and implemented it.
At this point in time I'm almost wishing they would win though I'd want to watch from a different country....

Newchodge - what did they not achieve?

 

[Clinton]

YAY they made HUGE progress and achieved absolutely nothing. You must be so proud of them.

Actually, they did. I suggest you do a bit of research rather than just sneering all the time.

 

[Newchodge]

Actually, they did. I suggest you do a bit of research rather than just sneering all the time.

Why not explain what they achieved instead of being condescending all the time?

 

[The Byre]

The UK debt now stands at a mind boggling £1.7 trillion.

No, it's £1.864tr and rising rapidly. That's £30k for every man, woman and child in the UK.

I don't know why you two are arguing, as neither major party has shown itself fit to run the economy.

 

[The Byre]

Labour make noises about taxing rich people more but there's sweet bugger all they can do to tax the biggest tax evaders.

True - but then you say -

The only way to get these people to pay is blocking the exits - using the OECD, G20 and other forums to put pressure on tax havens to disclose beneficial ownerships, prevent transferring profit across borders etc - the kind of things that Cameron and Osborne made huge progress on.

Er, no they did the opposite. By tightening up the rules, they restructured parts of the economy and forced companies and key individuals out of the country and thereby made reaching them and their taxes that much harder.

Those positions thus vacated were occupied by dead-money people, such as oligarchs, drug barons and Arab potentates, who did not come here to do business, but to be rich.

 

[Newchodge]

No, it's £1.864tr and rising rapidly. That's £30k for every man, woman and child in the UK.

I don't know why you two are arguing, as neither major party has shown itself fit to run the economy.

Neither may be fit to run the economy. Maybe the economy is not runnable? But one side runs it in favour of the wealthy elite and the other side wants to run it (because the current labour party has never actually run it) in favour of people. I know who I want to be favoured.

 

[The Byre]

There's too much party dogma in UK economics and not enough common sense. That's why we are in the economic mess we are in. Since the war, we have had absurd policies from both sides, totally blind to basic economic principles, such as greater equality leads to growth, high taxes slow growth and investing in infrastructure must be accelerated during economic downturns.

 

[Newchodge]

greater equality leads to growth,

Do you mean greater economic equality?

I remember talking to my 17 year old niece in 2008. Her mother had told her that the local council had to make people redundant because they could not afford to employ them. I pointed out that not employing them saved the council their salary, but cost the council their expertise (which is unquantifiable, but look at the problems of social care that have arisen because of council cuts) it also cost the country the benefits they needed - JSA, housing benefit, council tax benefit; plus it cost the country the money they would have spent in the local economy, potentially leading to local companies going bust, resulting in their staff being sacked and not earning, therefore costing.................. Bless her, she stopped being a UKIP supporter, which her parents were, and became a socialist. She met Jeremy Corbyn and became a believer; she has even (nearly) convinced her parents.

 

[Clinton]

Why not explain what they achieved instead of being condescending all the time?

Because you're the one who made the challenge and disputed my comments about what the Coalition and Conservative governments achieved at the OECD etc. on issues like disclosure of beneficial owners. (And, besides, I've already explained it to you here and elsewhere. Complete with links. Do keep up at the back.)

So if you maintain that they achieved nothing .... put up or shut up. Explain why you think that the changes amount to nothing. It's easy to just sneer, any idiot can do that. Demonstrate instead that you have at least the vaguest idea of what the UK government has done on the international stage on the issue of tax dodging.

She met Jeremy Corbyn and became a believer...

Give me a bucket!

I'm sorry I can't take seriously anybody who worships a political party.

@The Byre, you make good points, but .... greater equality leads to growth?!

I'm not a big fan of greater equality .... nor do I subscribe to the view that it inevitably and always leads to growth.

 

[The Byre]

Give me a bucket!

Two's up!

Corbyn is so very obviously not up to the gig of running the country, when we consider that he has shown himself not up to the vastly simpler task of running the parliamentary Labour Party.

But in that parade of the chronically incompetent, I would have to include May an Co. and her hapless predecessors Blair/Brown and Cameron/Osborne. The last time a competent Chancellor of the Exchequer took office in Westminster was probably Sir Walter Mildmay under Elizabeth the First. He died in office in 1589 and it's been downhill ever since!

@The Byre, you make good points, but .... greater equality leads to growth?!
I'm not a big fan of greater equality .... nor do I subscribe to the view that it inevitably and always leads to growth.

But it does!

In my work as a policy wonk for a UK political party, I researched this and other subjects to death!

We asked the question - Is an unfair society overall richer or poorer? Numerically and nominally - yes. The evidence is overwhelming. Doubling the Gini index will actually halve the GDP-per-capita. However, once you factor in the cost of living, this effect is halved, i.e. doubling the Gini-index will reduce the GDP-per-capita by 25% and not 50%.

Other factors we looked at were education (huge effect of past spending!) and size of country (another huge effect - small is beautiful!)

We only looked at N.W. European countries, as these have been living under the same trading conditions for 50 years and are sufficiently free of corruption to be comparable. The EU has given us a magnificent 50-year experiment in macro-economics like no other in history!

We did discover (but did not go as far as to put numbers on this) some of the effects of taxation. High taxes are a great way to achieve greater equality, but have a detrimental effect on wealth. It appeared that achieving greater equality by taxation alone was a 'zero-sum-gain' i.e. the end effect was to cancel itself out and may possibly have a long-term negative effect.

Simply put, an increase in taxation always increases the cost of living.

Some taxation is inevitable, but it is far, far more beneficial to achieve greater equality and the alleviation of poverty by legislation, such as rent-control, minimum wages, employment protection, mandatory care-insurance, stuff like that. Unfortunately, as one cannot put a number on legislation, we did not pursue these effects down to the level of being able to quantify them, but the correlation of social laws and standards of living and overall wealth in counties such as Denmark, Germany, Benelux group, Sweden, etc. sticks out like a sore thumb!

 

[Clinton]

The evidence is overwhelming. !

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Much has been written over the years on the issue of equality vs growth and a lot of time and money has been invested in researching the subject. Books, theses and white papers have been written and it is far from a clear cut case one way or the other.

There are good arguments on both sides (though I won't pretend to have read them all). However, when we talk equality in the context of the UK Labour Party, we're talking equality for equality's sake even at the expense of the economic success that would lift everybody; we're talking about equality achieved almost exclusively through redistribution i.e. the equality of envy.

Personally I think all this focus on equality is misplaced. But Labour do bang on about it because they're so heavily reliant on the old class-based and simplistic social-think that the Tories take care of the rich and only Labour look after the common man.

But as Jeremy Corbyn once said, "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God".

 

[Mr D]

Neither may be fit to run the economy. Maybe the economy is not runnable? But one side runs it in favour of the wealthy elite and the other side wants to run it (because the current labour party has never actually run it) in favour of people. I know who I want to be favoured.

Really? So the current Labour party can distance itself from all the previous times it has run the economy?
And just come up with ideas that will cost a fortune - but are not proven to work?

 

[Newchodge]

Really? So the current Labour party can distance itself from all the previous times it has run the economy?
And just come up with ideas that will cost a fortune - but are not proven to work?

The current Labour party bears no resemblance to the one that was last in power. Read the manifesto

 

[Mr D]

The current Labour party bears no resemblance to the one that was last in power. Read the manifesto

By that definition the current Conservative party, SNP in UK parliament etc bears no resemblance to the one we just had.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Neither may be fit to run the economy. Maybe the economy is not runnable? But one side runs it in favour of the wealthy elite and the other side wants to run it (because the current labour party has never actually run it) in favour of people. I know who I want to be favoured.

Having a country run in favour of either is, in my view, one of the biggest problems of all.

Giving to the people at the expense of big business, or giving to big business at the expense of people, has little impact on actually shifting the balance. They are deeply intertwined in so many ways, so you can't hit one without hitting the other.

People ask for more wealth to be taken from the wealthy, when it's often the wealthy who directly impact the jobs, mortgages, loans and pensions of the people who are demanding the action.

Take pensions, for example. Many people want policies which would take a bigger chunk of corporate profits, but they will also have pensions where the appreciation is directly linked to the stock market performance of the companies they are championing to be taxed more.

Yes, there are some wealthy elite who hoard their cash and have no impact whatsoever, but it's very hard to separate the two in terms of government policy. It's just an unfortunate side effect that they benefit as well.

There must be a balance, and that involves no favouritism at all.

 

[Mr D]

And whatever balance someone tries to achieve there will be people who insist the balance should move to what they favour.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

And whatever balance someone tries to achieve there will be people who insist the balance should move to what they favour.

Absolutely. There will never be a perfect balance, either. In such a complicated field the finer points are subjective.

But the least we can do is stop lurching between different extremes.

I actually like a lot of Labour's policies, but increasing corporation tax by 37% is a huge problem. Companies will try to maintain profit levels by reducing costs and increasing prices. It will also drive inwards investment away.

For all of the good Labour's policies will do for ordinary people, they will ultimately be hit by reduced wage growth and higher living costs.

Plus, if increasing the rate slows growth and investment, and therefore reduces taxable profits, a Labour government may not have anywhere near as much extra income as it thinks to fund all these ideas.

I actually don't think the corporation tax rate should be reduced to 17% as the Tories plan to do. 19% is competitive enough. But at the same time, the gigantic increase Labour has planned could cause a whole host of problems.

 

[Mr D]

True, we can stop lurching between the different extremes. Just pick one party and keep them in power 50 years or so.
Saves lurching.
The Labour idea of increased wage growth to £10 an hour is workable, though can see reducing staff hours from 25 a week to 18 or so in order to keep costs level. Still everyone can be happy at the hourly rate.
The US has been bringing in $15 an hour minimum wage in some places, it has had an impact.

 

[Cobby]

You can be horrified if you want. Perhaps even have a better answer.
Its not exactly an uncommon response. Unless wanting to ban suicide not sure what else could be done.

Again, that's not the (rather tangential) point I was making. The suggestion that a policy will directly and predictably increase suicide rates should at the very least give pause, not just result in a shrug like an emotionless automaton.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

True, we can stop lurching between the different extremes. Just pick one party and keep them in power 50 years or so.
Saves lurching.
The Labour idea of increased wage growth to £10 an hour is workable, though can see reducing staff hours from 25 a week to 18 or so in order to keep costs level. Still everyone can be happy at the hourly rate.
The US has been bringing in $15 an hour minimum wage in some places, it has had an impact.

Short government terms can actually have negative side effects. They must be retained to serve democracy, but they can make the effective running of a country more difficult.

Things can get worse before they get better, and 4/5 years is not a long time.

Changing the direction of a country is like turning an oil tanker. Policies that might bear fruit later on can never have a chance to be seen because transfers of power result in them being scrapped.

It also creates too much short-term thinking. Politicians are not only concerned about making the country better. They're also concerned about timing everything around election dates so their popularity peaks at the right times.

Such a system must be retained, of course, but it's hardly perfect.

As for the minimum wage, if that's increased, and corporation tax is increased, and the business environment becomes more restrictive, I have no idea where Labour expects the money to come from.

By all means increase the minimum wage, but give businesses financial relief in other areas. Doing both is nonsensical and could result in another recession.

 

[Mr D]

Again, that's not the (rather tangential) point I was making. The suggestion that a policy will directly and predictably increase suicide rates should at the very least give pause, not just result in a shrug like an emotionless automaton.

So benefit cuts, rising bills, child support, divorce, depression, job losses, home repossession, exams and businesses going bust should give pause then?

 

[Cobby]

I agree, I'm not excited about this. Unfortunately, the alternative is a party that hasn't got the vaguest idea about money. We're paying in excess of £1 billion a week in interest and they want to go out and borrow tens of billions to splurge on all kinds of giveaways, commit us to even more interest payments and lumber our kids with obscene amounts of national debt.

The UK debt now stands at a mind boggling £1.7 trillion. I dread to think what Corbyn and McDonnell would do to that.

You have an easily demonstrable irrational hatred for Labour and fanatical love for the Tories, and it clouds every point you try to make, sorry. You keep making statements like "they haven't got the vaguest idea" and "I dread to think" and at no point do you provide any form of evidence to back up your assertions or intuition.

So far in this election cycle the Conservatives have come off *extremely* poorly and they are clearly struggling to project a coherent message beyond sneering at Corbyn--easily demonstrable lies, u-turns, interview flops, robotic auto-responses and obviously fed lines, and noticeably constant dodging of the public and difficult questions. I'm not a fan of catchphrases but that whole "#WeakAndWobbly" thing seems increasingly to have substance. I mean, that ambush by Guru-Murthy was painful - not just a fumble or even ineptitude, it was a display of arrogant and hateful ideology; content be damned, the enemy must always be wrong.

Despite the bungling and incompetent public performances by Abbot, Labour have put on a fairly solid show - not great but reliably solid. Mostly rising above the vulgarity of the tactics on display by the government, they continue to provide calm and concise answers and with a few awkward and notable exceptions, they have been avoiding the vague 'politician' responses.

The polls have shown they've closed the lead which is an impressive feat given the array of media touting that tired and empty tautology about Corbyn being unelectable. It really does make you wonder if May actually wants to win...

It's easy to just sneer, any idiot can do that.

Genuine question: Do you ever read your posts back before hitting 'reply'?

 

[Cobby]

So benefit cuts, rising bills, child support, divorce, depression, job losses, home repossession, exams and businesses going bust should give pause then?

Okay I tried three times, you're either being obtuse or you simply won't get the point, sorry.

This is my failing, I obviously can't make it clearly enough.

 

[Cobby]

Because you're the one who made the challenge and disputed my comments about what the Coalition and Conservative governments achieved at the OECD etc. on issues like disclosure of beneficial owners. (And, besides, I've already explained it to you here and elsewhere. Complete with links. Do keep up at the back.)

Insufficient evidence to support your assertion.

So if you maintain that they achieved nothing .... put up or shut up.

Burden of proof is still with you, sorry. :/

 

[Mr D]

Yes, short term and government don't go together so well. The last 2 governments of the 20th century were a little unusual in that a party kept power so long - so possibly making that party more effective in government. Certainly had stability even if we again invaded Iraq - for the 3rd or 4th time depending who you talk to (may have been easier to simply stay the previous time).
Though apparently this Labour Party is not like that Labour party. Hey, only won 3 elections in a row that time...
Seriously government comes up with a policy for say a couple of floating roads that will become aircraft carriers.... from announcing to the going into service is years.
Or they announce a new package to build say an extra 100,000 new houses a year. What with planning permission, tendering, purchase of bricks from overseas, delivery, importing of builders etc its years before the policy takes effect. And the next government can quite easily scrap it in the interest of saving money.
Fracking? Another controversial subject - one government pushes it, another can scrap it temporarily, next government pushes it in a bigger way, next government scraps temporarily etc and so on.

 

[Mr D]

Okay I tried three times, you're either being obtuse or you simply won't get the point, sorry.

This is my failing, I obviously can't make it clearly enough.

Yes maybe I can't get the point rather than won't get the point.

 

[Clinton]

Insufficient evidence to support your assertion.

Burden of proof is still with you, sorry. :/

I'm not going to bother with you. I'll add my name to the list of people who find you simply a bit of a troll (who has a fanatical love for Labour). And, as trolls go, you're not even a very bright one. Time to put you on ignore.

<added>
Yeah! It worked! All cobby's posts have disappeared. I highly recommend this. Folk, a couple of clicks and you can improve your UKBF browsing experience no end. Don't feed the troll.

 

[Newchodge]

Having a country run in favour of either is, in my view, one of the biggest problems of all.

Giving to the people at the expense of big business, or giving to big business at the expense of people, has little impact on actually shifting the balance. They are deeply intertwined in so many ways, so you can't hit one without hitting the other.

People ask for more wealth to be taken from the wealthy, when it's often the wealthy who directly impact the jobs, mortgages, loans and pensions of the people who are demanding the action.

Take pensions, for example. Many people want policies which would take a bigger chunk of corporate profits, but they will also have pensions where the appreciation is directly linked to the stock market performance of the companies they are championing to be taxed more.

Yes, there are some wealthy elite who hoard their cash and have no impact whatsoever, but it's very hard to separate the two in terms of government policy. It's just an unfortunate side effect that they benefit as well.

There must be a balance, and that involves no favouritism at all.

No, you miss the point. The only thing that matters in our world is people (well, and animals). Whatever policies are followed if they don't benefit people, they fail. HOW to benefiit people is a different question, but a policy that disadvantages people and advantages something else has to be wrong. And any party that believes that people don't matter and something else matters more is a disgrace.

 

[Newchodge]

Absolutely. There will never be a perfect balance, either. In such a complicated field the finer points are subjective.

But the least we can do is stop lurching between different extremes.

I actually like a lot of Labour's policies, but increasing corporation tax by 37% is a huge problem. Companies will try to maintain profit levels by reducing costs and increasing prices. It will also drive inwards investment away.

For all of the good Labour's policies will do for ordinary people, they will ultimately be hit by reduced wage growth and higher living costs.

Plus, if increasing the rate slows growth and investment, and therefore reduces taxable profits, a Labour government may not have anywhere near as much extra income as it thinks to fund all these ideas.

I actually don't think the corporation tax rate should be reduced to 17% as the Tories plan to do. 19% is competitive enough. But at the same time, the gigantic increase Labour has planned could cause a whole host of problems.

But in 2010, when the Conservatives came to power the CT rate was 28%. Is it wrong to return it to less than it was then?

 

[Mr D]

No, you miss the point. The only thing that matters in our world is people (well, and animals). Whatever policies are followed if they don't benefit people, they fail. HOW to benefiit people is a different question, but a policy that disadvantages people and advantages something else has to be wrong. And any party that believes that people don't matter and something else matters more is a disgrace.

Policies that disadvantage what people use affect people.
Lets have a robin hood tax - but you will pay it. Lets have corporate subsidy cut - but you will pay for it.
Lets have an increase in minimum wage - but you will pay for it.
Lets increase government borrowing - but you and your kids will pay for it.

I cannot offhand think of anything that government can do that does not impact people. Heck, we can even take in asylum seekers fleeing persecution in France - but where they end up has an impact.
Next time you are in a shop ask them about the business rates impact. Which you as a customer have to pay for of course...

 

[Mr D]

But in 2010, when the Conservatives came to power the CT rate was 28%. Is it wrong to return it to less than it was then?

I hear Ireland is quite a nice place to do business.
Can set CT at whatever level, collecting the money the government when business does not have to be based here... that is another matter entirely. Can be based elsewhere and pay no CT here as its not payable.

 

[Newchodge]

Policies that disadvantage what people use affect people.
Lets have a robin hood tax - but you will pay it. Lets have corporate subsidy cut - but you will pay for it.
Lets have an increase in minimum wage - but you will pay for it.
Lets increase government borrowing - but you and your kids will pay for it.

I cannot offhand think of anything that government can do that does not impact people. Heck, we can even take in asylum seekers fleeing persecution in France - but where they end up has an impact.
Next time you are in a shop ask them about the business rates impact. Which you as a customer have to pay for of course...

I didn't say impact people. I said BENEFIT people. And I acknowledge that different people have different views on the best way to benefit people. But policies that ignore people in favour of something else, like those who take their wealth and squirrel it away so that it never benefits any person but themselves ust be wrong.

 

[Newchodge]

So benefit cuts, rising bills, child support, divorce, depression, job losses, home repossession, exams and businesses going bust should give pause then?

If they are caused by government policy then YES

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

But in 2010, when the Conservatives came to power the CT rate was 28%. Is it wrong to return it to less than it was then?

Yes, because lowering the corporation tax rate was the right thing to do. The corporation tax rate has gradually reduced (and never been increased) for the past 60 years. Even Blair's Labour government didn't do that.

Note that, despite the corporate tax rate being slashed considerably over the past 7 years, corporate tax receipts are continuing to rise. They increased 12% in this past year alone.

That means, with the Government taking a much smaller percentage of profits, the total company earnings in the UK are rising significantly. This lower rate is therefore playing its role. Despite the lower rate, the Government is ultimately making more money.

And this idea literally couldn't be timed worse due to Brexit. It's the start of the post-EU period when we're going to need to be as attractive as possible to business and investment. It will therefore be a double whammy of epic proportions if we leave the EU and whack up the corporate tax rate at the same time.

I understand the idea of trying to give more to the people, but increasing the corporate tax rate by over 30% is going to do far more harm than good. The last thing we need is to squeeze the earnings of the companies which create jobs and pay wages to the millions of people these policies are trying to help. There's only one outcome of that, and it's not a good one.

 

[Mr D]

If they are caused by government policy then YES

Then government is always responsible.
They set policy on divorce, child support, repossession, benefits and so on.

Just as we want them to.

 

[Mr D]

I didn't say impact people. I said BENEFIT people. And I acknowledge that different people have different views on the best way to benefit people. But policies that ignore people in favour of something else, like those who take their wealth and squirrel it away so that it never benefits any person but themselves ust be wrong.

Really?
Besides people who stick their money under the mattress / in a sock drawer / in a money box, who exactly squirrels money away so it never benefits any person but themselves?

Cannot recall any government policies over the last few decades that benefit those people. Can you?

 

[Newchodge]

Really?
Besides people who stick their money under the mattress / in a sock drawer / in a money box, who exactly squirrels money away so it never benefits any person but themselves?

Cannot recall any government policies over the last few decades that benefit those people. Can you?

You've never heard of the super wealthy stashing their money in tax havens? The additional money they have made because of the reduction in corporation tax, perhaps? Or by paying their workers in all those jobs they have created at starvation rates so they have to rely on state benefits in order to live?