General Election, June 8th

[Guest]

14 hours ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

Wow, Corbyn's not held back with his manifesto... it's like a leftists list to Stalin... ahem, Santa

Well this wins the prize for most ridiculous post on the thread. 

[Guest MattP]

16 minutes ago, Rob1742 said:

You have fallen into the trap that most fall into. "the tories have done that"

 

They are both as bad, it is the system that is wrong and those that are involved in it.

 

Until we as a population refuse to support those that treat us as idiots, then we won't get anywhere.

 

By voting we are accepting this pettiness that politics is. We need people in it that treat others with respect, and if someone from the other side does something god, it is congratulated rather than sneered at.

Even in football, managers may well say that the other team did well, and congratulate a player, and we know how bad a state football is in.

 

These fools will argue with the opposition view whatever it is, just to try and score a point.

 

I see the fool Corbyn today has tried to defend his side kick fool Abbott. Now really if he wanted to gain credibility, he should say it was an horrendous interview, and stick his hands up and say she got it horrendously wrong, and it won't happen again.

 

Tools the lot of them.

 

Then there is the other choice May. I can't imagine anyone going into a negotiation in business with the outlook she is taking on Brexit. If you do, you will fail big time.

 

Clueless the lot of them, absolute tools. My postal voting form came through today and it went straight in the bin.

 

Its like giving you the choice of going to watch either Derby or Forest on Saturday, and like fools we make a decision and go to watch one of them. Well there is another choice, don't go and watch eother, or in this case don't vote and they will realise we have had enough of this.

In the World today you either live in a democractic country or you don't, to live in one and then pour scorn on it is only something you could do if you don't live in the other, the people of North Korea or Syria would love to have the choices we have about what government they would like to elect.

 

If you don't want to vote then don't, but don't seriously compare it to being forced to make a choice of watching Derby or Forest. People in countries that don't engage in the democratic process risk losing one of the greatest achievements of humanity. You won't know what you have until it's gone.

 

I don't know whether you have read the the manifesto leak from Labour today, but this election is important, one of two parties will form the government and they now, for the first time in years intend to take us in hugely different directions. If you can't stomach that then make your vote for a minor party.

 

May I ask what reforms you actually want?

[Guest MattP]

14 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Well this wins the prize for most ridiculous post on the thread. 

It did make me laugh that the manifesto was leaked but the costings (usually in the back) somehow managed to avoid it. I presume they are still working on that

[Guest Foxin_mad]

To be honest the Manifesto is nonsense its based on dreaming.

 

They want to pay for lots of things by raising lots of tax, the trouble they have is people wont ever pay that much tax, they will either go somewhere else or do what they can to avoid paying it.

 

Companies will leave the country, they wont invest and innovate/train because their tax bill is so high and they have to pay the 'living wage'. Jobs will suffer.

 

Its fantasy economics and unfunded projects, they even admit the will have a £250 billion borrowing spree before contemplating that the tax receipts they estimate will be nowhere near when all the rich people leave the Marxist shithole.

[Sharpe's Fox]

 

*record scratch*

 

*freeze frame*

 

"Yep, that's me. So I guess your wondering how I got here."

[Guest]

I'm sure the costings will work as its expected to see £250bil worth of borrowing for capital expenditure over the parliament. This will obviously be torn to shreds by the tories. Personally slightly unsure whether to think it's a good or bad idea given that usually (in the sense of over the last 100 years) borrowing with the current interests rates is a relatively cheap way of funding capital projects and i would like to see the government spending. Whether its a great idea with the current level of debt is a very different thing though. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

To be honest the Manifesto is nonsense its based on dreaming.

 

They want to pay for lots of things by raising lots of tax, the trouble they have is people wont ever pay that much tax, they will either go somewhere else or do what they can to avoid paying it.

 

Companies will leave the country, they wont invest and innovate/train because their tax bill is so high and they have to pay the 'living wage'. Jobs will suffer.

 

Its fantasy economics and unfunded projects, they even admit the will have a £250 billion borrowing spree before contemplating that the tax receipts they estimate will be nowhere near when all the rich people leave the Marxist shithole.

As per my last post, i won't argue over whether the borrowing is a good idea or not but something within your post needs to be picked up on.

 

You say that if companies are forced to pay the living wage they'll leave the country. If people do a full time job and don't earn enough to live without significant in-work benefits surely that can never be seen as a good thing? The fact anybody tries to debate this shows how far to the right this country has moved over the last 40 years when it comes to business.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

11 minutes ago, MattP said:

It did make me laugh that the manifesto was leaked but the costings (usually in the back) somehow managed to avoid it. I presume they are still working on that

 

@HackneyAbbott is still working on that.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

9 minutes ago, toddybad said:

As per my last post, i won't argue over whether the borrowing is a good idea or not but something within your post needs to be picked up on.

 

You say that if companies are forced to pay the living wage they'll leave the country. If people do a full time job and don't earn enough to live without significant in-work benefits surely that can never be seen as a good thing? The fact anybody tries to debate this shows how far to the right this country has moved over the last 40 years when it comes to business.

I don't doubt that but fact is in a global economy there are alternatives. If a company can make t-shirts cheaper in China/India and ship them across the world they will, if they can make stuff in the UK but use robots they will. Having higher wages for unskilled jobs just kills/moves those jobs I am afraid (rightly or wrongly). It will also push up prices, cause inflation.

 

A heavily unionised high wage low skill economy will never ever compete.

 

Unless of course you want to nationalise everything and run it 'not for profit'? Companies have to make money to exist, paying more in tax and increasing a wage bill is not good for jobs or tax receipts. Its better to have a big company paying a globally competitive rate of corporation tax employing lots of people who also pay tax than have the company ship all the jobs overseas.

 

People probably need to adjust what they classify a 'needing' to survive. Cigarette, Alcohol and Sky TV and a huge TV are something most people have but are not often needed.

[davieG]

The problem with corporation tax

Kamal AhmedEconomics editor

20 minutes ago

 

From the sectionBusiness

 

5comments

These are external links and will open in a new window

Share this with Facebook

 

Share this with Twitter

 

Share this with Messenger

 

Share this with Email

 

Share

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES

Image captionThe Labour party has said it will raise corporation tax to spend £4.8bn on improving education

More from Kamal

Poor quality jobs 'are bad for the economy'

Unpacking the election row over spending

Hammond’s tax burden headache

France says City at risk post-Brexit

It sounds like a simple equation.

Announce more money for a public policy initiative and say you will pay for it with an increase in taxes.

On Wednesday the Labour Party said that it plans to spend more than £5bn improving education in England.

To fund the initiative, the party also announced the details of its proposals to increase corporation tax from its present rate of 19% to 26% by 2020-21.

A move described by Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies as one of the most significant tax increases for 30 years.

Smaller firms with profits below £300,000 a year will see more modest rises - up to 21% by 2020-21.

Labour, using figures from the government's official economic watchdog, the Office for Budget Responsibility, says the increases in corporation tax will raise £20bn by 2022.

The Liberal Democrats have also pledged more money for education (£7bn) paid for by a slightly lower increase in the business tax and the scrapping of tax allowances for married couples.

As both Labour and the Liberal Democrats will know, income from corporation tax (a tax on profits made by firms), is notoriously difficult to forecast.

In 2010, corporation tax raised just over £43bn in revenue for the government.

Since then it has been cut from 28% (interestingly, above the level announced today by Labour) to 19%.

One would suppose that would reduce the tax take for the government.

Not quite.

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES

Image captionFormer chancellor George Osborne cut the headline rate of corporation tax

In 2016, corporation tax raised £49.7bn, an increase of £6.7bn.

That is due to a number of interrelated issues.

First, economic growth has returned, leading to higher profits for firms.

Higher profits mean higher levels of tax receipts.

Now, supporters of corporation tax cuts argue that the very act of reducing the rate increases firms' propensity to invest and increases confidence that Britain is a "business friendly" economy.

Reducing business taxes ultimately creates wealth, they argue.

Second, although George Osborne reduced the headline rate (some joke it is called that for a reason as cutting it produces some nice headlines), he also announced a series of other, more Delphic, measures that actually increased business taxes.

The amount of tax that can be offset against capital investment in new buildings and machinery (called capital allowances) has been reduced.

Taxes on foreign income has also been reformed and rules over the shifting of profits between different tax jurisdictions have been tightened under the "base erosion" changes agreed with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Alongside these changes, the government has also introduced the banking levy, an extra tax on the City which brought in £1.6bn in 2012 - a figure that rose to just under £3bn by 2016.

Relocation risk

Many businesses would argue that, yes, the corporation tax cut is welcome but business taxes are already bringing in significantly more money.

And increasing the rate to 26% will simply reduce Britain's attractiveness to business investors and lose Britain vital places in the competitiveness league tables - given that the headline rate is low by G7 standards but other business taxes are relatively high.

Further, any change would come just at the time that Brexit has left a number of firms with their fingers hovering over the "relocate" button.

The new president of France, Emmanuel Macron, says he wants to see the French corporation tax rate cut to 25% from the present 33.3%.

As Mr Johnson said on the Today programme: "The risk is, that while this [Labour plan] would raise knocking on for £20bn in the short run, it is probably going to raise rather less than that in the long run as companies invest less and take other opportunities to reduce the amount of tax that they pay.

"So, the long run behavioural result of this tax would result in revenues being less than the immediate headline increase."

Forecasts can be wrong

Corporation tax is what is known as "dynamic" - that is, changes to it result in rapid changes in behaviour as sophisticated firms manage their balance sheet in such a way as to minimise any effects and support profits and returns to shareholders (which of course, don't forget, include our pension funds).

This leads to substantial levels of forecast error.

In 2013, the OBR forecast that corporation tax receipts for 2016-17 would fall to £38.2bn.

In fact, receipts were 30% higher.

That suggests that Labour and the Liberal Democrats' plans could raise more than the forecast £20bn.

Or - given the possible economic effect on business investment - far less.

That is the problem with pledges on tax - they are predicated on a forecast about an uncertain future.

That does not mean that political parties should avoid making policy funding announcements based on best revenue estimates by official bodies.

But it does mean that voters should be aware - forecasts can be wrong.

[Guest MattP]

9 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

@HackneyAbbott is still working on that.

 

[Guest MattP]

20 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I'm sure the costings will work as its expected to see £250bil worth of borrowing for capital expenditure over the parliament. This will obviously be torn to shreds by the tories. Personally slightly unsure whether to think it's a good or bad idea given that usually (in the sense of over the last 100 years) borrowing with the current interests rates is a relatively cheap way of funding capital projects and i would like to see the government spending. Whether its a great idea with the current level of debt is a very different thing though. 

I thought McDonnell has already committed to his "fiscal responsibility" rules, which rules not only will he find the money to pay for all this vast increase i spending but also he'll reduce the deficit during the parliament if elected?

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/john-mcdonnell-shadow-chancellor-is-the-new-voice-of-fiscal-responsibility-a6927926.html

 

Anyway, we'll find out how they are paying it in four days.

[davieG]

Is there a reason it's called a draft manifesto? It's not impossible that they've listed everything they'd like with a view to paring it back based on final agreement and costings. I'm sure these things go through many iterations and I'm sure the Tories have had something similarly stretched.

I've been involved in private industry where we've done that although we called it a wish list.

I think I'll reserve judgement until the approved version comes out.

 

 

 

[Sharpe's Fox]

21 minutes ago, davieG said:

Is there a reason it's called a draft manifesto? It's not impossible that they've listed everything they'd like with a view to paring it back based on final agreement and costings. I'm sure these things go through many iterations and I'm sure the Tories have had something similarly stretched.

I've been involved in private industry where we've done that although we called it a wish list.

I think I'll reserve judgement until the approved version comes out.

 

The Tory Party manifesto is written by two or three unelected consultants in a dark room trying to not upset as many people as they can get away with.

 

The Labour Party is a democratic institution where Shadow Cabinet members and trade unionists all have a say in the final published documents so it isn't surprising there are many iterations and drafts attached to emails flung through cyberspace. The Clause V meeting will probabaly confirm most if not all of the policies in the draft.

[Rincewind]

Yes I am sure previous governments of all parties have had similar drafts. Draft is a better term to use by politicians  than broken promises.

Its a bit late in the day to have a draft manifesto tho.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

22 minutes ago, davieG said:

Is there a reason it's called a draft manifesto? It's not impossible that they've listed everything they'd like with a view to paring it back based on final agreement and costings. I'm sure these things go through many iterations and I'm sure the Tories have had something similarly stretched.

I've been involved in private industry where we've done that although we called it a wish list.

I think I'll reserve judgement until the approved version comes out.

 

 

 

 

Its a draft because its final form still needs to be approved at the meeting of the Labour executive today - dubbed the 'Clause V' meeting or something, but I understand that the 'V' represents the number 5 rather than the hand signal.

 

Thus this meeting today leads to a possible explanation for the leak... in that if it is already out there, it becomes difficult to amend or remove any key planks at the said meeting.

 

I'd say it's unlikely to be the act of anti Corbyn sabatours from within the party given on reflection it's unlikely to do any more damage than Corbyn and his shadow cabinet team can achieve by themselves, but that was muted a theory in some circles.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

38 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

 

9 x 25 = 225

7 x 10 = 70

add them together plus the 5

 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Rincewind said:

Yes I am sure previous governments of all parties have had similar drafts. Draft is a better term to use by politicians  than broken promises.

Its a bit late in the day to have a draft manifesto tho.

To be fair the election was called unexpectedly. 

[davieG]

14 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

Its a draft because its final form still needs to be approved at the meeting of the Labour executive today - dubbed the 'Clause V' meeting or something, but I understand that the 'V' represents the number 5 rather than the hand signal.

 

Thus this meeting today leads to a possible explanation for the leak... in that if it is already out there, it becomes difficult to amend or remove any key planks at the said meeting.

 

I'd say it's unlikely to be the act of anti Corbyn sabatours from within the party given on reflection it's unlikely to do any more damage than Corbyn and his shadow cabinet team can achieve by themselves, but that was muted a theory in some circles.

I guess it depends on how old it is.

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, toddybad said:

To be fair the election was called unexpectedly. 

In just March this year the party spokesman said they were "on an election footing" and expecting it so no excuse really. (Corbyn also said it late last year)

 

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/84394/labour-‘early-election-footing’-says-party

 

 

 

[LiberalFox]

It's a decent manifesto, have heard a number of people saying they intend to vote Labour now (that could all change of course). 

 

It will be interesting to see what percentage of the vote Corbyn finishes up with. If it's close to or better than Milliband's then it give Labour an interesting dilemma. Given the turmoil that has happened, that would be a decent result.

[Sharpe's Fox]

11 minutes ago, MattP said:

In just March this year the party spokesman said they were "on an election footing" and expecting it so no excuse really. (Corbyn also said it late last year)

 

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/84394/labour-‘early-election-footing’-says-party

 

 

 

They thought the window had gone when Maybot didn't announce one to be grouped in with the local elections. Who would have guessed that she would meet a burning bush in the Welsh mountains which told her to free her people from the shackles of the remainder of the welfare state?

[Alf Bentley]

3 hours ago, MattP said:

Is this manifesto shorter or longer than the Micheal Foot led one?

 

Call me a conspiracy theorist but I actually think this 'leak' is a work of genius from Corbyn and his team, manifestos don't get leaked but this one has and it's one that his supporters will absolutely love, Trident aside one that pretty much is every reason why they voted him, now expect a adjusted or moderated one to come out on May 15th and that can obviously be blamed on the PLP and anyone but Jeremy and his team, they are the ones who have stolen the manifesto and it will rile the supporters up even more to kick out the so called moderate.

 

The people saying the Corbyn campaign has been a car crash from all sides are making the same mistake as those who were calling Trump a buffon during his, they are watching his actions and listening to his words through their own ears and eyes rather than the ones of a ex Pittsburgh Steel worker or in this case the young Corbynista from York, he knows this has gone and all he is doing is shoring up his base for what he probably sees as the more important election he'll face a few months down the line when his leadership is challenged again.

 

The bloke was campaigning in Harlow the other day, somethig that looked pointless, a seat with a large Tory majority but on closer inspection it is apparantly a place with a large Labour membership, that should tell you everything you need to know.

 

That's an interesting theory - and a perfectly credible one. The PLP won't get a say on the final manifesto, as I understand it, but the Shadow Cabinet and NEC will - and could conceivably get it watered down. It'll be interesting to see how vigorously the leak is investigated and whether anyone is identified...I didn't hear any expressions of great anger at the leak on the lunchtime news (and they had a brief word with McDonnell, who seemed very relaxed...).

 

There's a lot of stuff in the manifesto that might be quite popular. The problem will be the Tories costing everything up and using it to run "tax bombshell" and "you can't trust Labour with the economy" campaigns. It'll be interesting to see the final costings and how they propose to fund all the spending. Some of it has been explained, but much of it hasn't yet. I hope they've got someone credible to audit their plans.... Though I wonder how much damage such expensive spending pledges will do? After all, the Tories would have run "tax bombshell" and "fiscally irresponsible Labour" campaigns even if Labour had made no spending pledges at all! I suspect any damage may already have been done. Who knows, even spending pledges that many lefties couldn't justify (e.g. abolishing tuition fees, keeping the "triple lock" guarantee on pensions) could be vote-winners among particular electoral groups.

 

Interesting that the policy is still to replace Trident, despite Corbyn's opposition. I wonder if he's conceded that - or will he start disputing it the minute he's asked about it in an interview? If he's conceded it, it blocks one obvious Tory line of attack, though plenty of others remain. The idea of turning immigration against the Tories by highlighting how they've failed to meet their "under 100,000 per year" pledge could neutralise that issue a bit.

 

Corbyn seems to have been visiting an odd range of locations: Harlow, Leamington, York, Swindon, Bristol, Cardiff.... all places where Labour might be looking to win seats in a very good year. It'll be interesting to see where else he visits during the campaign. There could be something in what you say about fighting the next leadership campaign, not the election.....but maybe he really believes that he can achieve a massive turnaround. Incredibly optimistic, if so... 

[Rincewind]

I know some people that switched to Greens when Blair was in charge.  Now they have rejoined Labour. What does that say about Labour's previous policies?

[Alf Bentley]

3 hours ago, MattP said:

I had a proper look at the local elections this week and this result was interesting in terms of local politics.

 

https://www.leicestershire.gov.uk/about-the-council/how-the-council-works/elections/election-2017/439

 

	Party	Votes	Elected	%
			2844
	Amanda Jayne Hack	Labour	1330	Yes	46.7
	Les Phillimore	Conservative	1273	No	44.7
	Rennee June Kent	UK Independence Party	241	No	8.47

 

If the Tories are only 2% behind Labour in Braunstone I really do think Liz Kendall is in trouble.

 

Yep, the Tories definitely stand a good chance of taking Leicester West, unless the polls change.

 

Plenty of arguments for that:

- Not a massive majority last time, with a big UKIP vote, probably mainly going to the Tories

- Labour did worse than average in the Midlands at the local elections

- Labour is doing much worse in white working-class areas than in big, metropolitan cities, university towns, more racially-mixed areas & more prosperous areas

 

A strong, well-liked local candidate (like Kendall?) or strong local activist base might gain you another couple of thousand votes, but not much more. That might be enough to save a seat in a close contest, but not if the national swing suggested a 5000 majority or something. Most people vote for the party, not the candidate.

 

I reckon massively variable swing could be a real feature of this election. There could be very big swings in struggling white former industrial towns or struggling working-class areas, but very little swing in big cities and prosperous areas.

It wouldn't surprise me to see Labour holding tight marginals - maybe even winning 1 or 2 - in London/South/SW & the big northern cities, but losing seats with large majorities in the Midlands, NE, North outside Manchester/Liverpool/Leeds etc.