General Election Is On

[AndrewJB]

A good overview of nationalisation on here

https://www.ft.com/content/0470ad62-f62 ... 65a6ce1a00

The NHS relies on private firms to help deliver the free at point of use service. A great example of where public and private work well together.

There are all too many examples of nationalisation in this country only delivering inefficiency for users and the country. There is no incentive to invest and there is no incentive to avoid underperformance either.

Nationalisation doesn't work.

I've just given you a series of examples in which nationalised services work better than privately owned ones, so I fail to see how the blanket statement "nationalisation doesn't work" holds any water. Eastcoast Mainline franchise was walked away from by Stagecoach and this was after a previous company failed to run it properly, and within a few years under public ownership it was the best run railway in Britain, requiring the smallest subsidies, and returning profits. Branson once described his Westcoast route as a "license to print money" - and our railways now take four times the subsidies that BR did. On the evidence we could say, "privatisation doesn't work". Most of our railways are run by the state owned railways of other countries now anyway - so we may as well run them ourselves, rather than subsidising the passengers in Germany and France.

Things have moved on since the great macro nationalisations of the postwar era. There are many ways of running state-owned services, and at the very least the money we pump in to reinvest won't go toward shareholder dividends.

[clarethomer]

Those pesky right wing media people forcing Corbyn to tell the public things about how only the wealthy would pay...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50567031

[AndrewJB]

The NHS is sacrosanct,that'll i'll grant you,which is why no government of whatever colour will ever move from a free at the point of delivery principle,as to do so would be electoral suicide.

Regarding your BBC claim,the difference is i the consumer have an option whether to subscribe to SKY,on the basis of value for money,whereas the licence fee is a mandatory tax whether i think the BBC is worth it or not,given the plethora of modern technology available now,the BBC is an outdated institution in the 21st century.

With the BBC being publicly owned, it could also be more democratic - and respond to the wishes of the people. Public elections for members of the board could be one way of doing this (certainly better than the government appointing someone to it as a thank you for services rendered).

The culture aspect is a very big difference between state and privately run media. I would say that already too much of our media landscape is dominated by billionaire owners. No doubt you will have seen the heavy slant quite a few papers put into their election coverage, so having media that isn't owned by billionaires is extremely important. I think there are a lot of ways in which the BBC can adapt, but I would never want it out of the hands of the people.

[clarethomer]

I've just given you a series of examples in which nationalised services work better than privately owned ones, so I fail to see how the blanket statement "nationalisation doesn't work" holds any water. Eastcoast Mainline franchise was walked away from by Stagecoach and this was after a previous company failed to run it properly, and within a few years under public ownership it was the best run railway in Britain, requiring the smallest subsidies, and returning profits. Branson once described his Westcoast route as a "license to print money" - and our railways now take four times the subsidies that BR did. On the evidence we could say, "privatisation doesn't work". Most of our railways are run by the state owned railways of other countries now anyway - so we may as well run them ourselves, rather than subsidising the passengers in Germany and France.

Things have moved on since the great macro nationalisations of the postwar era. There are many ways of running state-owned services, and at the very least the money we pump in to reinvest won't go toward shareholder dividends.

Let me get this right..

1 - I give you an article which explains that nationalisation doesnt work and gives good reasoned rationale and examples.

2- I refer you back to times in this country which confirms nationalisation hasn't been a success.

3 -I agree that the NHS which is run on private and public funding is a positive example of how public and private work well together..

and your response is...

Yeah but that was different back then and its now different...

You don't back up why now is different to post war era and....

your rationale is well at least shareholder dividends wont be paid..

Yeah - all sounds logical and legit to me...

[taio]

Labour aren’t telling people that. The right wing media are telling people that Labour are telling people that.

John McDonnell:

"What we're saying is in terms of income tax, yes the top 5% will pay a bit more - and actually not a great deal more but they'll pay a bit more. The [other] 95% of earners will not pay an increase in the income tax rates or in VAT or in National Insurance."

[CombatClaret]

'indecent, dishonest and untruthful'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-50726500

88% of Conservative Election ads are either lies or not the whole truth.

"For Labour, it said that it could not find any misleading claims in ads run over the period"

Cummings once more at the helm of a campaign of deceit.
Meanwhile BBC refuses to call out Torys in the headline and buries the story in the 'technology' section.

[Spiral]

YouGov's MRP model has been updated tonight with interviews conducted over the last 7 days. Interviews on Wed, Thu, Fri, Sat and Sun...then the floor photo happens...Mon and Tues (today). The lead has been cut to 9 points and in YouGov's words a hung parliament cannot be ruled out according to their polling. If Johnson snatches defeat from the jaws of victory it will be due to that photo and his terrible reaction to that photo. A dip to 7% makes a majority incredibly difficult for Johnson, and you have to wonder what effect that photo would have had on those respondents from Wed-early Monday morning. Obvious caveats about margins of error etc, but I'd be $hitting my pants if I were a Tory right now. My gut is still telling me Tory majority; Johnson has had practically no gaffes during the campaign, the Labour campaign has been pretty turd, and I'm not sure of the wisdom of an offensive strategy by Labour (but what do I know!), but if the referendum parties somehow pull this off I'm completely disregarding everything I know about politics. Oh, and there's 2% between the LD challenger and Dominic Raab. The foreign secretary's seat is a complete toss up within polling margin of error.

[martin_p]

John McDonnell:

"What we're saying is in terms of income tax, yes the top 5% will pay a bit more - and actually not a great deal more but they'll pay a bit more. The [other] 95% of earners will not pay an increase in the income tax rates or in VAT or in National Insurance."

Which income tax rates are going up for earners earning less than 80k?

[clarethomer]

All parties are guilty of stretching the truth and to present labour as not making any claims which were untruthful..

I agree there should be more regulation around advertisements and it would be a positive move for the electorate too.

How about we visit the emergency media call to talk about some leaked documents which proved the NHS was for sale but didn't actually prove anything... There is no point going tit for tat on trying to spin points. If something is factually wrong, it should be pulled up - regardless of the party saying it..

Going back to the point in discussion - the Labour manifesto is not credible and those people who think the spending will get paid for only by the wealthy are deluded.

[taio]

Which income tax rates are going up for earners earning less than 80k?

Marriage tax allowance.

[martin_p]

Marriage tax allowance.

That’s not a tax rate it’s a tax allowance.

[taio]

That’s not a tax rate it’s a tax allowance.

It reduces the level of income tax paid - that's what matters.

In any case I was disputing you saying that "Labour aren’t telling people that" (with reference to the 5% of income tax payers) which was plain wrong. They were clearly saying exactly that.

[Swizzlestick]

Latest polls appear to show the gap narrowing. Still think the Tories will get their majority fwiw, albeit a small-ish one, but it's been another dreadful election campaign by them. They way they've dealt with the A&E story has been startlingly bad, especially for such a key issue, and they've drummed home the "Get Brexit Done" message so much that I think it's started to grate on some sections of the electorate. Labour will need the youth vote to come out strong on Thursday, though, and I'm not entirely sure they will. Should be an interesting 24 hours as it may not be the cakewalk I initially thought it might be for Johnson.

[clarethomer]

It reduces the level of income tax paid - that's what matters.

In any case I was disputing you saying that "Labour aren’t telling people that" (with reference to the 5% of income tax payers) which was plain wrong. They were clearly saying exactly that.

It is pretty much the tactics employed from most Labour activists/supporters I come across- can’t argue with a point so let’s throw another argument into the discussion to prove you wrong on a point you are not talking about..

[martin_p]

It reduces the level of income tax paid - that's what matters.

In any case I was disputing you saying that "Labour aren’t telling people that" (with reference to the 5% of income tax payers) which was plain wrong. They were clearly saying exactly that.

No, they were saying they’d raise corporation tax too which will impact small businesses where it’s entirely possible the income from that business is less than £80k.

[AndrewJB]

People like me? What is that supposed to mean?

Im highly supportive of the NHS.

I am criticising the strategy of Labour to promise huge investment on the promise of a 'Robin Hood' type fantasy of robbing the rich to give to the poor.

The premise that the rich will stick around and take it is laughable. They have the means to be able to move elsewhere. France tried it and it wasn't too long after that they were pretty much trying to get them back as they realised what they got actually was better than nothing.

Likewise, I am criticising Labour telling people that only the top 5% will pay more.

Lets look at who gets the marriage tax allowance - is that the rich? No... Who pays corporation tax? Is that only the top 5%? Who pays dividend tax? Pretty much most people that have pensions and not limited to the top 5%

When the invoice needs paying... it wont be the 5% paying it - We all will be paying it.

Likewise those that are classed at the top earners- pay proportionately their fair share. They also generate wealth and taxes for the country. https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/com ... ology.html

People like you (referring to your assertion that nationalising some services is unworkable and expensive) claimed that creating the NHS would be too expensive, and unworkable back when the government was proposing creating the NHS. In fact the same people said the same things about all of Labour's nationalisation program of that year - railways, etc. The Tories didn't sell it all off when they returned to power, because the program worked.

As for Labour's tax plans, big companies are sitting on huge cash piles and have been doing so for years. This is money not being reinvested in the economy - and it makes far more sense to tax that money than it does to force poor people to choose between heating their homes and feeding their children. Rich people have got away with sidestepping the tax man over the last forty years, because governments have let them. I think Labour would be different in this respect, so yes, I think the tax aims are achievable.

[martin_p]

It is pretty much the tactics employed from most Labour activists/supporters I come across- can’t argue with a point so let’s throw another argument into the discussion to prove you wrong on a point you are not talking about..

I didn’t throw anything in, I replied to a post saying John McDonell was wrong. He was very specific in his wording about earners and income tax rates to make sure nothing he said was wrong.

[taio]

No, they were saying they’d raise corporation tax too which will impact small businesses where it’s entirely possible the income from that business is less than £80k.

Jesus wept. The 5% you disputed was such an obvious reference to income tax. Labour has explicitly said through their election campaign only the top 5% would pay more income tax. What do you make of the direct quote from the shadown chancellor? The suggestion that the media were saying this and not Labour is laughable.

[martin_p]

Jesus wept. The 5% you disputed was such an obvious reference to income tax. Labour has explicitly said through their election campaign only the top 5% would pay more income tax. What do you make of the direct quote from the shadown chancellor? The suggestion that the media were saying this and not Labour is laughable.

The direct quote from the shadow chancellor is correct.

[taio]

The direct quote from the shadow chancellor is correct.

Yep making this wrong:

Labour aren’t telling people that. The right wing media are telling people that Labour are telling people that.

[martin_p]

Yep making this wrong:

Labour aren’t telling people that. The right wing media are telling people that Labour are telling people that.

But he doesn’t say what you said.

[taio]

But he doesn’t say what you said.

He certainly disproved your point that it was the right wing media who were saying that only the top 5% would be affected, not Labour. That's complete rubbish.

Why you chose to then bring corporation tax into it is anyone's guess. Incidentally corporation tax liabiltiy is not just based on income.

[Paul Waine]

The direct quote from the shadow chancellor is correct.

Hi martin, I agree with you. JMcD was very careful with the words he was using - so he gave everyone the impression he wanted to give them.

But, if he'd said that people earning less than £80k would pay more in income tax that, also, would have been accurate.

Do you agree?

[AndrewJB]

Let me get this right..

1 - I give you an article which explains that nationalisation doesnt work and gives good reasoned rationale and examples.

2- I refer you back to times in this country which confirms nationalisation hasn't been a success.

3 -I agree that the NHS which is run on private and public funding is a positive example of how public and private work well together..

and your response is...

Yeah but that was different back then and its now different...

You don't back up why now is different to post war era and....

your rationale is well at least shareholder dividends wont be paid..

Yeah - all sounds logical and legit to me...

I delved into rail privatisation in some detail, so consider - cost of travel, level of service, complexity of ticket prices - all of which fall far short of rail travel in Europe on state run railways.

The NHS is not a state / private partnership, but a state institution that buys goods and services from the private sector. Nine percent private involvment - and when you consider the government sold off our bloodbank some years ago, when you give blood now, the people who take it will sell it to the NHS. Not exactly efficient, but that's the Tories for you.

As for running things, there was a greater emphasis on top down control in the postwar period - and this was the same across most of the western world. This allowed some politicians to use their industrial holding as a means of rewarding political services. Labour have said they want to avoid this sort of route to failure, and make the running of services better. This could be more employee participation in how its run, a more democratically acountable board (elected by the people in some cases?). Partnerships with other services (this could see police forensic labs - currently privately owned - being shared with the NHS, or with universities). In other words the idea that things have to have a private owner, or shareholders and be run for profit, is not the best way to run government services.

[clarethomer]

People like you (referring to your assertion that nationalising some services is unworkable and expensive) claimed that creating the NHS would be too expensive, and unworkable back when the government was proposing creating the NHS. In fact the same people said the same things about all of Labour's nationalisation program of that year - railways, etc. The Tories didn't sell it all off when they returned to power, because the program worked.

As for Labour's tax plans, big companies are sitting on huge cash piles and have been doing so for years. This is money not being reinvested in the economy - and it makes far more sense to tax that money than it does to force poor people to choose between heating their homes and feeding their children. Rich people have got away with sidestepping the tax man over the last forty years, because governments have let them. I think Labour would be different in this respect, so yes, I think the tax aims are achievable.

I wasn’t even around when the NHS was created so it certainly couldn’t be someone like me..

You would be correct in saying that embarking on the scale of nationalisation today/now/2020 would be incredibly expensive. And regardless of a picture being painted of no boom or bust and the good old fashioned Robin Hood socialist value, the borrowing needs to be repaid.

So you target the wealthy.. who have the means to move their wealth, plan it effectively and keep it out of the UK completely. These are the same people that can easily reside elsewhere too.

If you do get them retain their business here, well you know what they will do next, charge higher prices to reflect that minimum wage has gone up and to deliver profit margins on a higher cost base and taxation environment. It’s likely the biggest of corporations that have these big piles of cash could outlive a government in a period of discontent and unsettlement.

They won’t spend, they won’t invest.. Even worse, if they feel the risk v reward balance isn’t worthwhile - they will close..

There is no evidence of taxing the wealthy has worked. France tried it not that long ago... they lost a lot of money and saw I think about 42,000 millionaires leave. With Corbyn wanting that close alignment with Europe- it will be easy to jump on the train and be out of the UK..

This reminds me of that saying.. everyone has a plan until they get punched. My fear is that Labour is fighting a fight like they are a people’s champion when in reality they have no substance are would be found out pretty quickly that their plans are pretty rubbish when the assumptions made reflect no comparison to reality.

[RingoMcCartney]

Watching Sky news Press Review. Labour Luvvie Ayesha Hazarika and Tom Newton Dunn looking at tomorrow's papers.

The Sun headline has a picture of Boris with the headline " Boris ticks all the boxes"

Immediately former labour advisor , unthinkingly, jumps in with both feet- " Well The Sun always backs the tories doesn't it"

Newton Dunn , politely points out - "Er no, The Sun supported Labour 3 times"

Exasperated, Hazarika contorts on her chair spitting out a begrudging semi acknowledgment of the truth- "Yeah I know but, well er, you know........"

Sums up a typical , still flying in the face of reality and needing to cling onto their blinkered, unthinking dogma-ridden agenda , labour supporter, in a 20 second nutshell.

[AndrewJB]

Hi martin, I agree with you. JMcD was very careful with the words he was using - so he gave everyone the impression he wanted to give them.

But, if he'd said that people earning less than £80k would pay more in income tax that, also, would have been accurate.

Do you agree?

If income tax rates are remaining the same for people earning less than £80K, the only way they'll pay more income tax is by earning more money, no?

You're quibbling over this point to avoid the wider one. Under Labour's plans, we'll see a wider rollout in energy efficiency, and local sustainable energy production - so the price people pay for energy will fall. A UK wide rollout of fast fibre broadband will see more people able to work from home, and enable new business, as well as making existing business more productive. This then also carries a benefit for everyone. More investment in schools and hospitals, in addition to the investment in green energy means more well paid jobs - and that's also good for the economy, and for people's lives. A big uptake in housebuilding will see a fall in rents, which means more money spread around the economy by more people than just individual landlords - which again is good for the economy. More houses means more secure tenancy, which makes for more secure neighbourhoods because people aren't moving all the time - and that's better for everyone.

You have to consider the bigger picture, and when you do that you'll see that peoples lives are going to be significantly better than they are now. And that fact kind of puts the question of "was McDonnell just selling his plans like any other politician does?" a moot point.

In contrast, under the Tories we'll continue to get ripped off by energy, water, rail, internet, mobile phones, the NHS might be part of a trade deal with the US (or some parts of it might - which has already happened), and we'll get more austerity. They might replace some of the police they cut, and they will put more people in jail, and just might plant some more trees, but probably bring back fracking, and fix a few potholes.

That's our choice.

[Swizzlestick]

Was Tom Newton Dunn questioned about why he used the neo-nazi website Aryan Unity as a source for one of his articles or was that side-stepped?

[RingoMcCartney]

Labour used to be the working class party.

They've morphed into an Islington dinner party, spouting Far Left populist attention seeking nonsense.

Just hope people are wise enough not to fall for it.

"By the age of 20, if you're not a socialist. You have no heart.

By the age of 40, if you're not conservative. You have no brain........."

[RingoMcCartney]

Was Tom Newton Dunn questioned about why he used the neo-nazi website Aryan Unity as a source for one of his articles or was that side-stepped?

Well, to be fair, given both Newton Dunn and Hazarika were there as guests , to review tomorrow's newspaper headlines. To bring it into the conversation would have been almost as irrelevant as your question.

[dsr]

John McDonnell:

"What we're saying is in terms of income tax, yes the top 5% will pay a bit more - and actually not a great deal more but they'll pay a bit more. The [other] 95% of earners will not pay an increase in the income tax rates or in VAT or in National Insurance."

He didn't say we won't pay an increase in income tax. He said we won't pay an increase in income tax rates. This is actually meaningless because you don't pay an income tax rate, you pay tax charged at an income tax rate; but it's his way of saying "I did not tell a lie".

What McDonnell is saying, in a convoluted way, is that everyone will pay more tax, but the way they get extra income tax off the poorer people is by a different manner from the way they get extra income tax off the richer people.

It's almost as if he was trying to mislead people into thinking that the poor won't pay any more taxes. I remember a certain Burnley FC manager who stood tall and proud and said that he never lied to anyone - he didn't count deliberate deceit as lies, he didn't count sending his assistant out to lie on his behalf as lies. McDonnell appears to be cut from the same cloth.

[Paul Waine]

If income tax rates are remaining the same for people earning less than £80K, the only way they'll pay more income tax is by earning more money, no?

Hi martin's mate, Andrew.

Just this one sentence, my friend. Andrew was stating that JMcD was stating the truth with what he said. I agreed with him, JMcD was telling the truth with the words he was, very carefully, using.

I'm pretty sure Andrew knew that (and still knows that). But, JMcD was not telling the truth (have I got it right that not spinning what you is the same as not being truthful?).

JMcD - and other labour candidates - have accepted that removing the married allowance means that those people (all low earners, by definition) will pay more income tax. Similarly, they accept that withdrawing the £2,000 income tax allowance on dividend income, and charging all dividends at the tax payers marginal rate, will result in people who receive dividend income paying more tax - and, many of these will be earning (a lot) less than £80,000.

So, Andrew, you will understand that the answer to your question is "no" - there are at least two other ways that "they'll pay more income tax" without earning more money.

[dsr]

If income tax rates are remaining the same for people earning less than £80K, the only way they'll pay more income tax is by earning more money, no?

Of course no.

If someone earns say £50,000 but currently pays tax on £36,250 of it, and the Labour party gets in and says you are now paying tax on £37,500 pf it, they will pay more tax. That's how the sums work. I can't make it simpler.

[Swizzlestick]

Well, to be fair, given both Newton Dunn and Hazarika were there as guests , to review tomorrow's newspaper headlines. To bring it into the conversation would have been almost as irrelevant as your question.

Bringing up that the political editor of The Sun using far right sources in one of his articles is "irrelevant". Sums you up. He's reviewing the papers on Sky News because of his position, though I guess we've seen what happens when Tories are challenged - they either run away (Neil interview), completely fabricate a story (Hancock 'punch') or totally denigrate a member of the public via sock puppet accounts and bots.

[CBT]

One word or party who everyone on here is voting for if they don't mind sharing that is
Me - labour

[aggi]

He didn't say we won't pay an increase in income tax. He said we won't pay an increase in income tax rates. This is actually meaningless because you don't pay an income tax rate, you pay tax charged at an income tax rate; but it's his way of saying "I did not tell a lie".

What McDonnell is saying, in a convoluted way, is that everyone will pay more tax, but the way they get extra income tax off the poorer people is by a different manner from the way they get extra income tax off the richer people.

It's almost as if he was trying to mislead people into thinking that the poor won't pay any more taxes. I remember a certain Burnley FC manager who stood tall and proud and said that he never lied to anyone - he didn't count deliberate deceit as lies, he didn't count sending his assistant out to lie on his behalf as lies. McDonnell appears to be cut from the same cloth.

You mean McDonnell is going to be successful way beyond expectations and lay the foundations for the country's most successful ten years in generations? I didn't realise that you rated him so highly.

[Paul Waine]

You're quibbling over this point to avoid the wider one. Under Labour's plans, we'll see a wider rollout in energy efficiency, and local sustainable energy production - so the price people pay for energy will fall. A UK wide rollout of fast fibre broadband will see more people able to work from home, and enable new business, as well as making existing business more productive. This then also carries a benefit for everyone. More investment in schools and hospitals, in addition to the investment in green energy means more well paid jobs - and that's also good for the economy, and for people's lives. A big uptake in housebuilding will see a fall in rents, which means more money spread around the economy by more people than just individual landlords - which again is good for the economy. More houses means more secure tenancy, which makes for more secure neighbourhoods because people aren't moving all the time - and that's better for everyone.

You have to consider the bigger picture, and when you do that you'll see that peoples lives are going to be significantly better than they are now. And that fact kind of puts the question of "was McDonnell just selling his plans like any other politician does?" a moot point.

In contrast, under the Tories we'll continue to get ripped off by energy, water, rail, internet, mobile phones, the NHS might be part of a trade deal with the US (or some parts of it might - which has already happened), and we'll get more austerity. They might replace some of the police they cut, and they will put more people in jail, and just might plant some more trees, but probably bring back fracking, and fix a few potholes.

That's our choice.

And, taking a look at the rest of your post. Am I right to conclude that the official labour instruction is to respond to the truth that "people earning less than £80,000 will pay more income tax according to labour's manifesto tax plans" with this "but, we are spending a lot and everyone will benefit?"

What is the "rip off" on mobile phones? I've not heard that one before.

Why do you bring up fracking? Did you see that there was an earthquake in south west a few days ago? I don't know how much damage there was. There'd been another one sometime early 2018, also. Both of them bigger than the "biggest" one resulting from the fracking in the summer.

[dsr]

You mean McDonnell is going to be successful way beyond expectations and lay the foundations for the country's most successful ten years in generations? I didn't realise that you rated him so highly.

Unfortunately McDonnell is imitating Coyle right at the end of his Burnley tenure. If he gets in and we have ten years of McDonnell,, he will be as successful as Coyle has been in the last ten years; and the economy he takes charge of will be in a similar position to that of Bolton Wanderers.

Yes, I rate him that highly.

[dsr]

What is the "rip off" on mobile phones? I've not heard that one before.

That's an interesting point on mobile phones. If all the internet providers are to be nationalised and internet provided free on government servers, what about mobiles? Will people still be able to get 4G phones? Will the government pay for them? What about the monthly contracts?

Phones are dirt cheap, incidentally. £10 to buy a new one, less than £10 a year to run it, I find. Terrific value for a wonderful service. Well done, Vodafone.

I believe mobile do-it-all computers with a phone function cost a lot more. But as the UK is riddled with poverty, I wouldn't expect many people to have those.

[Paul Waine]

I've just taken a quick glance at Wednesday's Times.

Big "fact check" article. I'll let people take a look for themselves about what it say's about Labour's "95% of the people will pay no more income tax" claims.

Election 2019: those big campaign promises factchecked — claim by claim
Chris Smyth examines the broader picture behind some of the election’s most eye-catching assertions.

[AndrewJB]

I wasn’t even around when the NHS was created so it certainly couldn’t be someone like me..

You would be correct in saying that embarking on the scale of nationalisation today/now/2020 would be incredibly expensive. And regardless of a picture being painted of no boom or bust and the good old fashioned Robin Hood socialist value, the borrowing needs to be repaid.

So you target the wealthy.. who have the means to move their wealth, plan it effectively and keep it out of the UK completely. These are the same people that can easily reside elsewhere too.

If you do get them retain their business here, well you know what they will do next, charge higher prices to reflect that minimum wage has gone up and to deliver profit margins on a higher cost base and taxation environment. It’s likely the biggest of corporations that have these big piles of cash could outlive a government in a period of discontent and unsettlement.

They won’t spend, they won’t invest.. Even worse, if they feel the risk v reward balance isn’t worthwhile - they will close..

There is no evidence of taxing the wealthy has worked. France tried it not that long ago... they lost a lot of money and saw I think about 42,000 millionaires leave. With Corbyn wanting that close alignment with Europe- it will be easy to jump on the train and be out of the UK..

This reminds me of that saying.. everyone has a plan until they get punched. My fear is that Labour is fighting a fight like they are a people’s champion when in reality they have no substance are would be found out pretty quickly that their plans are pretty rubbish when the assumptions made reflect no comparison to reality.

What you're saying is; we can't tax the rich more because they're so powerful that they can sink our country? And because they're getting increasingly wealthy (the richest thousand people in the UK are closing in on a trillion in wealth - up from £250 Million in 2010), their control over us is just getting stronger, so as time goes by our ability to tax them more (or at all) is diminishing? I don't think we're quite at the point we all have to embrace serfdom yet.

First of all we have to consider the nature of power, which in this country resides in parliament (and from there the government). The last forty years have seen governments very friendly to the rich to a greater or lesser degree - and so the rich have been able to exercise power in this country (to a greater or lesser degree) via the government. At this juncture we should sit back and take stock of how very undemocratic this is. Murdoch - not even a citizen - has bragged about how he has a back door key to Number 10. And over time living standards and wages have fallen for average people, while the rich have got a lot richer. I would say this is an example of the government working for the rich. During this time the fiction has grown that the rich would all find a way of avoiding tax (or leave the country) if we asked more of them, because under the laws we have, rich people are able to hire teams of people to find and exploit loopholes. This has been presented by various governments as something they have no power to stop, and of course this is because they don't want to stop it because the existence of these people helps to keep them in power - through their political donations, and through the propaganda they push on the rest of us (through owning "thinktanks" or media organisations, etc)

I think it's fairly plain that a Labour government would not be as beholden to the rich as previous ones have been. Corbyn is not about to become the godfather of Murdoch's next child. So Labour's approach isn't going to be the appeasement one of previous governments, and parliament can enable them to act a lot more creatively in tackling capital flight (they could abolish the old currency and start a new one - for example), and tax avoidance. They could tax people on their wealth, their citizenship (passports), land, the things they leave behind in the UK, exert diplomatic pressure on countries harbouring them, or even target Necker Island with drone strikes. When you mentioned everyone having a plan until they're punched, you neglected to consider who can punch hardest.

Of course things will never come to such a pass - there will be compromises made, and whatnot. But if you think a few thousand very rich people could hold the whip hand over this country, then you overestimate the power their money has, and underestimate this country.

[AndrewJB]

And, taking a look at the rest of your post. Am I right to conclude that the official labour instruction is to respond to the truth that "people earning less than £80,000 will pay more income tax according to labour's manifesto tax plans" with this "but, we are spending a lot and everyone will benefit?"

What is the "rip off" on mobile phones? I've not heard that one before.

Why do you bring up fracking? Did you see that there was an earthquake in south west a few days ago? I don't know how much damage there was. There'd been another one sometime early 2018, also. Both of them bigger than the "biggest" one resulting from the fracking in the summer.

You've never heard of people paying too much on mobile contracts after they lapse?

You've not addressed any of my main points, so I'll repeat it now: Under Labour, people will be better off than what is proposed by the tories (for the reasons I've outlined above).

[clarethomer]

What you're saying is; we can't tax the rich more because they're so powerful that they can sink our country? And because they're getting increasingly wealthy (the richest thousand people in the UK are closing in on a trillion in wealth - up from £250 Million in 2010), their control over us is just getting stronger, so as time goes by our ability to tax them more (or at all) is diminishing? I don't think we're quite at the point we all have to embrace serfdom yet.

First of all we have to consider the nature of power, which in this country resides in parliament (and from there the government). The last forty years have seen governments very friendly to the rich to a greater or lesser degree - and so the rich have been able to exercise power in this country (to a greater or lesser degree) via the government. At this juncture we should sit back and take stock of how very undemocratic this is. Murdoch - not even a citizen - has bragged about how he has a back door key to Number 10. And over time living standards and wages have fallen for average people, while the rich have got a lot richer. I would say this is an example of the government working for the rich. During this time the fiction has grown that the rich would all find a way of avoiding tax (or leave the country) if we asked more of them, because under the laws we have, rich people are able to hire teams of people to find and exploit loopholes. This has been presented by various governments as something they have no power to stop, and of course this is because they don't want to stop it because the existence of these people helps to keep them in power - through their political donations, and through the propaganda they push on the rest of us (through owning "thinktanks" or media organisations, etc)

I think it's fairly plain that a Labour government would not be as beholden to the rich as previous ones have been. Corbyn is not about to become the godfather of Murdoch's next child. So Labour's approach isn't going to be the appeasement one of previous governments, and parliament can enable them to act a lot more creatively in tackling capital flight (they could abolish the old currency and start a new one - for example), and tax avoidance. They could tax people on their wealth, their citizenship (passports), land, the things they leave behind in the UK, exert diplomatic pressure on countries harbouring them, or even target Necker Island with drone strikes. When you mentioned everyone having a plan until they're punched, you neglected to consider who can punch hardest.

Of course things will never come to such a pass - there will be compromises made, and whatnot. But if you think a few thousand very rich people could hold the whip hand over this country, then you overestimate the power their money has, and underestimate this country.

No - what I’m saying is that the poor and less wealthy will pay more and your failure to understand that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

The rich won’t hold the country to ransom - they will understand that the government will do what they want. They will simply reduce their contribution or find ways to retain/protect their wealth

[martin_p]

No - what I’m saying is that the poor and less wealthy will pay more and your failure to understand that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

The rich won’t hold the country to ransom - they will understand that the government will do what they want. They will simply reduce their contribution or find ways to retain/protect their wealth

We’re talking people earning £80k or more here. Most wont have the opportunity or inclination just to up sticks and leave.

By the way, despite what you’ve heard, there absolutely is such a thing as a free lunch, I’ve had many.

[RMutt]

'indecent, dishonest and untruthful'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-50726500

88% of Conservative Election ads are either lies or not the whole truth.

"For Labour, it said that it could not find any misleading claims in ads run over the period"

Cummings once more at the helm of a campaign of deceit.
Meanwhile BBC refuses to call out Torys in the headline and buries the story in the 'technology' section.

Imagine a party being voted into power that was demonstrably the most dishonest and misleading in its election campaign. One that has a proven liar as a leader. A party that has by far the largest amount of money to use in order to spread its deceit through targeted social media advertising. A party that has the support of the majority a manipulative print media.
Would You be able to trust them if the were elected?

[RingoMcCartney]

Bringing up that the political editor of The Sun using far right sources in one of his articles is "irrelevant". Sums you up. He's reviewing the papers on Sky News because of his position, though I guess we've seen what happens when Tories are challenged - they either run away (Neil interview), completely fabricate a story (Hancock 'punch') or totally denigrate a member of the public via sock puppet accounts and bots.

After my original post they repeat the press review an hour later. I couldn't resist watching again!

The Sun headline has a picture of Boris with the headline " Boris ticks all the boxes"

Immediately former labour advisor , unthinkingly, jumps in with both feet- " Well The Sun always backs the tories doesn't it"

Newton Dunn , politely points out - "Er no, The Sun supported Labour 3 times"

Exasperated, Hazarika contorts on her chair spitting out a begrudging semi acknowledgment of the truth- "Yeah I know but, well er, you know........"

Sums up a typical , still flying in the face of reality and needing to cling onto their blinkered, unthinking dogma-ridden agenda , labour supporter, in a 20 second nutshell.

Absolute comedy gold!

[evensteadiereddie]

The next few months will be hilarious. I'll give Johnson less than a year before he's replaced.

[martin_p]

After my original post they repeat the press review an hour later. I couldn't resist watching again!

The Sun headline has a picture of Boris with the headline " Boris ticks all the boxes"

Immediately former labour advisor , unthinkingly, jumps in with both feet- " Well The Sun always backs the tories doesn't it"

Newton Dunn , politely points out - "Er no, The Sun supported Labour 3 times"

Exasperated, Hazarika contorts on her chair spitting out a begrudging semi acknowledgment of the truth- "Yeah I know but, well er, you know........"

Sums up a typical , still flying in the face of reality and needing to cling onto their blinkered, unthinking dogma-ridden agenda , labour supporter, in a 20 second nutshell.

Absolute comedy gold!

The 24 hour news channels repeat things a lot less often than you do!

[RingoMcCartney]

The 24 hour news channels repeat things a lot less often than you do!

You just stick to delusion and trying to convince yourself that channel 4 news isn't left wing biased!



They had to withdraw the clip of boris that theyd claimed was him saying "people of colour"

Their main presenter , John Snow, filmed singing "f*** the tories at Glastonbury!!"

Channel 4 News, as balanced as you Marty!

[Devils_Advocate]

Ringo's become a bit like Nigel Farage. People used to listen to him once of a day and he his views had a bit of influence but now has just become a total irreverence who is mostly ignored but for a few people who humour him every now and then for their own light entertainment.