Labour's Spending Plans - Fully Costed

[UpTheBeehole]

Hopefully yer da can now shut up about the 'magic money tree'

[DCWat]

And where does the hundreds of billions come from to renationalise the mail, water and rail industries? Is paying shareholders off really capital expenditure?

[hampsteadclaret]

- renationalise without compensation.

[BleedingClaret]

I like it
Nice to be away with the fairies

[BleedingClaret]

- renationalise without compensation.

They could just take your house, with no compensation obviously, and use it as a mental health centre

[Burnley Ace]

Let's leave water out for the moment, the problem (this is for all parties) is that they presume that behaviour will stay the same. Who knows how business, for example in the City, will respond - would this accelerate the Brexit process, would IT companies relocate to Dublin. How will China or the French respond to the billions they stand to lose?

[Newty]

Fully costed? It looks less in depth than a year 10 GCSE business studies mock exam practice paper.

[If it be your will]

.

[If it be your will]

.

[Sidney1st]

Is it that easy though?

It's Labour we're talking about after all.

[Sidney1st]

Let's see how much mindless abuse it gets, we've got off to a good start.

You'll get the arse on when someone comes along and takes it pieces constructively anyway.

[Falcon]

Seems fairly reasonable and thought out. There'll be some knob on in a minute calling Corbyn both a terrorist and a pacifist in the same breath before banging about a 'coalition of chaos' I'm sure though.

[hampsteadclaret]

I will get back to you Bleeding, when I am not on my phone.

[If it be your will]

.

[Sidney1st]

Lift the public sector pay cap?

Why would you want to lift that, aren't the chief execs getting overpaid as it is in the public sector?

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

Yes because all public sector workers receive chief executive wages.

[If it be your will]

.

[Lancasterclaret]

One thing it is impossible to say with any certainty is that anything is "fully costed".

Its not going to be, but it doesn't have to be, it has to get a 10% swing against the Tories in a month.

[Sidney1st]

Yes because all public sector workers receive chief executive wages.

No they don't, you're right, but maybe the top need to be paid less because I doubt they are giving value for money.

Fix the top and you'll fix the bottom end of the ladder.

[If it be your will]

.

[Sidney1st]

You mean when Paul Waine comes back with that evidence-bereft Laffer Curve silliness? Yes, I probably will!

Ah yes I forgot only YOU know it doesn't exist/work, or words to that effect.

Opposition party makes promises it probably can't keep, that's all Labour are doing, just like the Tories before them.

[aggi]

You mean when Paul Waine comes back with that evidence-bereft Laffer Curve silliness? Yes, I probably will!

The Laffer Curve is a reasonable theory. Obviously the point is that there is an optimal tax rate at somewhere between o% and 100% to maximise revenue. There's nothing to say that increasing taxes will not move them nearer that optimal tax rate though. Lots of studies have suggested that the optimal tax rate for Western economies is higher than the tax rates that are in place (60-70% has been mooted a number of times).

On the face of it the costing looks reasonable, but they were never going to present something that looked otherwise. Realistically it's just a variety of numbers and doesn't mean anything without the underlying calculations for each of those numbers. The likelihood is that they're a little optimistic but that will be the case for all parties.

[Lancasterclaret]

Best bit of the launch was the magnificent mustache of the Morning Star Correspondent, or him complaining about "Biased" news.

Yes, that is the Morning Star, the party of the communist party (who began the whole fake news craze and the cult of personality)

[claretandy]

Not raising the retirement age past 66 will cost 300 billion pounds according to the former pensions minister Steve Webb. Dan hodges is currently pulling apart the rest of their costings on twitter.

[If it be your will]

.

[BleedingClaret]

So it turns out we can afford it all.

The startling thing is that all it really takes is an increase in income tax of 5p for those earning over 80,000/year, and returning corporation tax to where it was in 2011. It really was quite easy to transform the country after all.

Example intending to renationalisating Water included in todays manifesto
But not included in today's funding figures
10 billion to buy out Thames water alone
So might not do it, but will see if there is a loophole in the legislation to let the state steal it back.

[Lancasterclaret]

Sure Aggi is much better at this than me, but saying you are going to grab loads of money from rich people isn't as easy as it sounds on a manifesto.

[dsr]

The other figure to focus on is the total of 48.6 Billion. And remember that the richest 1000 people in the country have just increased their wealth by nearly twice that sum in a single year. It's not as if the wealth isn't there.

Their wealth rose by 14% over the past year to a record £658bn.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39830087" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And if share prices drop, their wealth will reduce. Where will your simplistic funds come from then?

[If it be your will]

.

[dsr]

One that interests me is the Corporation Tax. They take £19.4 + £3.8 billion off companies, total £23 billion; money which those companies no longer have avaialable to pay dividends and to pay staff. Suppose they cut dividends by half and cut staff pay by half; then there are a lot more people on the dole and receiving tax credits, and a lot more people paying less tax, and a lot more companies shifting their activities offshore. So they certainly won't get £23 billion savings next year - where will it come from then?

[If it be your will]

.

[Lancasterclaret]

It would be risky doing that kind of raid when we were in the EU, now we are leaving its total economic suicide. Its makes their whole policy on Brexit even weirder.

Its a manifesto to get votes, not one to actually run a country on.

[Lancasterclaret]

That doesn't mean I don't think large parts of it make perfect sense, just that is is going to cost a lot. And I'm not sure that we have that money, or that we can get it without serious long term consequences.

[aggi]

I don't want to get into the Laffer Curve here because it was thrashed out here:
http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboar ... 5&start=50" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But yes, there might be some merit to the Laffer Curve in the >70% region, but we're not in that region.

Well there is still merit at lower levels, just that it may be in favour of labour and increasing taxes.

Obviously tied into that,as Lancaster refers to, is at what point it's worth companies stepping up their avoidance schemes. It may be that Labour step up their efforts in this area too (it's in the budget) but unfortunately most of the best people are working for those doing the avoidance, not the stopping it.

[taio]

I simply don't believe they will generate that much additional revenue from corporation tax, which makes up a big chunk of the overall funding envelope needed. But that is based on initial thoughts only, as I don't have time to back that up with facts and figures right now. Could be wrong but historically coroproartion tax rates have been higher and never generated such level of receipts.

[RingoMcCartney]

Somebody tell Diane Abbot to fire up the Delorean, we're going back to 1971!

[UpTheBeehole]

Somebody tell Diane Abbot to fire up the Delorean, we're going back to 1971!

Whereas you'd prefer 1930s Bavaria judging by your posts

[quoonbeatz]

can't believe i've actually read a political party's manifesto but i have with this one and, whilst its by no means perfect, its really good.

i'll extend the same courtesy to the tories and lib dems. the bar has been set pretty high so lets see what they can both come up with.

refreshingly it seems like the parties aren't 'all the same' this time round.

[quoonbeatz]

Somebody tell Diane Abbot to fire up the Delorean, we're going back to 1971!

yes, we know, you're one of the 52% who voted for it.

[Lancasterclaret]

I wouldn't bother with the Conservative one to be honest.

It will be high on rhetoric, and very short on actually "stuff". Telling the truth costs votes.

[RingoMcCartney]

Whereas you'd prefer 1930s Bavaria judging by your posts

Bavaria 1930? Isn't that a lager sold in Aldi?

[Mala591]

I wonder if there is any mention of the £1.7 trillion (yes 1.7 TRILLION pounds) national debt?

Believe or not we spend £45 billion (yes 45 BILLION pounds) each year on paying the interest on this debt.

Surely the number one responsibility of any government is to start to pay off this debt or should we just 'forget about it' and let our children/grand children/great grand children sort it out.

[DCWat]

Lots of nice ideas and in many of the points, I think most would find it difficult to argue with what they are aiming towards.

However, having some agreeable aims in a manifesto is a million miles always being able to deliver on them and they have perhaps played into the Conservatives "strong and steady" hands.

[RingoMcCartney]

yes, we know, you're one of the 52% who voted for it.

Nobody likes a poor loser matey!

[quoonbeatz]

I wouldn't bother with the Conservative one to be honest.

It will be high on rhetoric, and very short on actually "stuff". Telling the truth costs votes.

i'm expecting that but i'm a fair man.

its up to each party to win my vote.

[If it be your will]

.

[TVC15]

I simply don't believe they will generate that much additional revenue from corporation tax, which makes up a big chunk of the overall funding envelope needed. But that is based on initial thoughts only, as I don't have time to back that up with facts and figures right now. Could be wrong but historically coroproartion tax rates have been higher and never generated such level of receipts.

Obviously corporation tax is directly linked to the amount of profit generated by companies. So with profits made by businesses currently standing at an all time high then like you say you could be wrong.

The cuts in corporation tax made by the Tory Party have been significant and given the period that we are in don't really make much sense. With employment rates being high then they have little or no impact on creating jobs and it does seem more than a coincidence that executives / directors pay is also at a record high. At the same time the average earnings of employees has hardly moved in the last 8 or 9 years.

So upshot is rich get richer and the government gets less tax - perfect Conservative politics.

[BleedingClaret]

I wouldn't bother with the Conservative one to be honest.

It will be high on rhetoric, and very short on actually "stuff". Telling the truth costs votes.

It's much easier producing a manifesto if you know you haven't got to implement any of it, and can ride on the theoretical glory of it for 4 years..... at least

[smudge]

Not raising the retirement age past 66 will cost 300 billion pounds according to the former pensions minister Steve Webb. Dan hodges is currently pulling apart the rest of their costings on twitter.

Not sure where this figure of 300 billion pounds is coming from.
Is he assuming everyone who lives to 66 years of age will still be working.
There will be many at that age both men and women who will find it impossible to work.
There was many jobs that someone at that age cannot do.
Money will have to be found for people at 66 wether it's a pension or benefits.
Surely its better for people to be able to retire with some dignity at that age.

[Lancasterclaret]

Peston is good on this btw

https://www.facebook.com/pestonitv/post ... 3322330071" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;