Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Your business dealings have precisely **** all similarity to supra-national trade deals and the unpicking of 40 years of political union. 

The point of making sure you aren't shafted in negotiations stands whether you are unpicking history or flogging carpets to a tourist.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, MattP said:

The point of making sure you aren't shafted in negotiations stands whether you are unpicking history or flogging carpets to a tourist.

Currently the only people shafting us are ministers of the UK government

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Currently the only people shafting us are ministers of the UK government

Yeah the EU negotiators have behaved absolutely perfect in every way and have no intention of making this difficult at all.

 

Probably best we leave it, not going to agree.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, MattP said:

Yeah the EU negotiators have behaved absolutely perfect in every way and have no intention of making this difficult at all.

 

Probably best we leave it, not going to agree.

Yeah probably 

[Alf Bentley]

52 minutes ago, MattP said:

I'm not being so ridiculous I think that a trade deal should be on the table before we agree a settlement, but I also don't think a settlement should be on the table before we have spoken about trade, I think it would be far more sensible for all sides if all the negotiations ran concurrent with each other, I see no reason why an open and shut case should be needed for each stage to progress to the next, it should be allowed to develop as it goes on.

 

I don't think that's an unreasonable position at all. I was negotiating last week about a sponsorship payment with a company and naturally they wanted guarantees about how many customers I would provide before they released funds - they wouldn't have tolerated me demanding money up front with no guarantee, no business would, it's leaving yourself open to being shafted.

 

Taking your business sponsorship metaphor, the equivalent to the current EU/UK stand-off would be this: You previously had a longstanding sponsorship agreement with the company, but they unilaterally decided to withdraw from that deal. They then avoided making meaningful commitments in negotiations over the termination of that deal, insinuated that they might not honour their previous commitments and might operate as a cut-price business to destroy your business - but said they were prepared to discuss the terms on which they might honour those previous, firm commitments if you were prepared to discuss a replacement deal. Nobody with a brain would accept such a negotiating stance - one that made it clear they were an untrustworthy business partner.

 

Now, of course, there will be grey areas in the existing EU deal that can be bargained over (payments towards projects continuing after we leave, long-term pension payments etc.). But mostly it will be legally clear that we are committed to pay a range of sums. In contrast, while both sides are obliged to negotiate an exit deal under Article 50, neither side is under any obligation whatsoever to negotiate a new deal, mutually beneficial though it would be, provided both sides acted honourably.

 

I'm sure that, as you say, not everything need be "an open and shut case for each stage to progress". But it seems entirely reasonable for the EU to want to feel confident that a fair deal will be done to terminate the existing relationship before embarking on negotiations over a future relationship. Given our apparent evasiveness in negotiations and blatant threats that we might walk away with no deal or turn the UK into a low-tax, low-regulation offshore rival, I don't blame the EU for being cautious - indeed, if we don't demonstrate that we're reliable partners, I wouldn't blame them if they walked away from any future deal. I hope they don't - and it would damage them, but it would damage us an awful lot more.

Edited 11 October 2017 by Alf Bentley

[Buce]

Monetary Fund (IMF)

IMF: higher taxes for rich will cut inequality without hitting growth

Analysis supports tax strategy of Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour in UK – and undermines that of Donald Trump in US

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/11/imf-higher-taxes-rich-inequality-jeremy-corbyn-labour-donald-trump

 

Higher income tax rates for the rich would help reduce inequality without having an adverse impact on growth, the International Monetary Fund has said.

In an analysis certain to be seized on by Labour as backing for its tax strategy, the IMF used its influential half-yearly fiscal monitor to attack the rationale for the reductions in tax for the highest earners in recent decades.

The IMF said tax theory suggested there should be “significantly higher” tax rates for those on higher incomes but the argument against doing so was that hitting the rich would be bad for growth.

 

“Empirical results do not support this argument, at least for levels of progressivity that are not excessive,” the IMF said, adding that different types of wealth taxes might also be considered.

The fiscal monitor does not mention any country by name, but the thrust of the report suggests it has doubts about the pro-rich tax plan proposed by Donald Trump for the US.

By contrast, its finding that tax systems have failed to keep pace with an ever-widening gap between those on the highest incomes and those struggling with stagnant wages had echoes of Jeremy Corbyn’s 2017 Labour manifesto.

Labour proposed a new 45% tax band on those earning more than £80,000 and a 50% rate for those on more than £123,000.

Corbyn and the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, said the proposed changes were needed to arrest rising income inequality – a line of argument supported by the IMF study.

The fiscal monitor said most advanced economies in the west had experienced a sizeable increase in income inequality in the past three decades, driven primarily by the growing income of the top 1%.

 

Traditionally, governments have sought to make their societies less unequal by levying higher income tax rates on the rich and using the proceeds to help those less well off either directly or through public services.

But it found that income tax systems had become markedly less progressive in the 1980s and 1990s and had remained stable since then, even though growing inequality raised the need for a more progressive approach.

In an IMF blog, the head of the IMF’s fiscal affairs unit, Vitor Gaspar, said the average top income tax rate for the rich country members of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development had fallen from 62% in 1981 to 35% in 2015.

 

“In addition, tax systems are less progressive than indicated by the statutory rates, because wealthy individuals have more access to tax relief,” Gaspar said in the blog co-written with Mercedes Garcia-Escribano. “Importantly, we find that some advanced economies can increase progressivity without hampering growth, as long as progressivity is not excessive.”

IMF research found that between 1985 and 1995, redistribution through the tax system had offset 60% of the increase in inequality caused by market forces. But between 1995 and 2010, income tax systems failed to respond to the continuing increase in inequality.

It also said inequality should be tackled by giving a more pro-poor slant to public spending.

“Despite progress, gaps in access to quality education and healthcare services between different income groups in the population remain in many countries,” Gaspar and Garcia-Escribano said, adding that in rich countries men with university education lived up to 14 years longer than those with secondary education or less.

“Better public spending can help, for instance, by reallocating education or health spending from the rich to the poor while keeping total public education or health spending unchanged,” they added.

In its separate global financial stability review, the IMF said it would take several years for central banks to return interest rates to more normal levels due to the risk of aborting recovery.

But the report also highlighted the risk that prolonged monetary support could lead to the buildup of further financial excesses. Too much money was chasing too few assets offering a yield, the IMF said.

[Captain...]

39 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Taking your business sponsorship metaphor, the equivalent to the current EU/UK stand-off would be this: You previously had a longstanding sponsorship agreement with the company, but they unilaterally decided to withdraw from that deal. They then avoided making meaningful commitments in negotiations over the termination of that deal, insinuated that they might not honour their previous commitments and might operate as a cut-price business to destroy your business - but said they were prepared to discuss the terms on which they might honour those previous, firm commitments if you were prepared to discuss a replacement deal. Nobody with a brain would accept such a negotiating stance - one that made it clear they were an untrustworthy business partner.

 

Now, of course, there will be grey areas in the existing EU deal that can be bargained over (payments towards projects continuing after we leave, long-term pension payments etc.). But mostly it will be legally clear that we are committed to pay a range of sums. In contrast, while both sides are obliged to negotiate an exit deal under Article 50, neither side is under any obligation whatsoever to negotiate a new deal, mutually beneficial though it would be, provided both sides acted honourably.

 

I'm sure that, as you say, not everything need be "an open and shut case for each stage to progress". But it seems entirely reasonable for the EU to want to feel confident that a fair deal will be done to terminate the existing relationship before embarking on negotiations over a future relationship. Given our apparent evasiveness in negotiations and blatant threats that we might walk away with no deal or turn the UK into a low-tax, low-regulation offshore rival, I don't blame the EU for being cautious - indeed, if we don't demonstrate that we're reliable partners, I wouldn't blame them if they walked away from any future deal. I hope they don't - and it would damage them, but it would damage us an awful lot more.

Matt's right though, the EU aren't being reasonable but then why should they, they aren't the one breaking the deal. Again this is something that was foreseen by a number of people before triggering article 50 but we still seemed completely unprepared for it, apart from a few pithy sound bites. 

 

We should have been able to lead the negotiations away from the divorce bill by now,  either by committing to our best case scenario. The 10bn Euro figure that we have calculated. We put that on the table, sign it off as theirs on the proviso that a deal is reached within our time frame, and put the rest of the divorce payment on the back burner and start trade negotiations and other talks. Suddenly they have 10bn reasons to reach a deal and that deal will undoubtedly involve the UK paying more. No deal and we walk away keep the 10bn and make them fight through the courts for any settlement.

 

Or we do the opposite commit to their figure in principle and chip away at it during the next round of negotiations, either way it is a carrot for them to get the deal done. Bizarrely we started being all bullish in the run up, but have been pretty meek in reality, we would have been better off starting out conciliatory and then getting bullish if needed. We even picked the perfect leader for it, a remain voter who had kept out of the the referendum and was thrust into a shit situation that she needed to deal with. Instead of doing her best to placate the EU and try and work with them she postured around and pissed off everyone involved.

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, Buce said:

Monetary Fund (IMF)

IMF: higher taxes for rich will cut inequality without hitting growth

Analysis supports tax strategy of Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour in UK – and undermines that of Donald Trump in US

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/11/imf-higher-taxes-rich-inequality-jeremy-corbyn-labour-donald-trump

 

Higher income tax rates for the rich would help reduce inequality without having an adverse impact on growth, the International Monetary Fund has said.

In an analysis certain to be seized on by Labour as backing for its tax strategy, the IMF used its influential half-yearly fiscal monitor to attack the rationale for the reductions in tax for the highest earners in recent decades.

The IMF said tax theory suggested there should be “significantly higher” tax rates for those on higher incomes but the argument against doing so was that hitting the rich would be bad for growth.

 

“Empirical results do not support this argument, at least for levels of progressivity that are not excessive,” the IMF said, adding that different types of wealth taxes might also be considered.

The fiscal monitor does not mention any country by name, but the thrust of the report suggests it has doubts about the pro-rich tax plan proposed by Donald Trump for the US.

By contrast, its finding that tax systems have failed to keep pace with an ever-widening gap between those on the highest incomes and those struggling with stagnant wages had echoes of Jeremy Corbyn’s 2017 Labour manifesto.

Labour proposed a new 45% tax band on those earning more than £80,000 and a 50% rate for those on more than £123,000.

Corbyn and the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, said the proposed changes were needed to arrest rising income inequality – a line of argument supported by the IMF study.

The fiscal monitor said most advanced economies in the west had experienced a sizeable increase in income inequality in the past three decades, driven primarily by the growing income of the top 1%.

 

Traditionally, governments have sought to make their societies less unequal by levying higher income tax rates on the rich and using the proceeds to help those less well off either directly or through public services.

But it found that income tax systems had become markedly less progressive in the 1980s and 1990s and had remained stable since then, even though growing inequality raised the need for a more progressive approach.

In an IMF blog, the head of the IMF’s fiscal affairs unit, Vitor Gaspar, said the average top income tax rate for the rich country members of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development had fallen from 62% in 1981 to 35% in 2015.

 

“In addition, tax systems are less progressive than indicated by the statutory rates, because wealthy individuals have more access to tax relief,” Gaspar said in the blog co-written with Mercedes Garcia-Escribano. “Importantly, we find that some advanced economies can increase progressivity without hampering growth, as long as progressivity is not excessive.”

IMF research found that between 1985 and 1995, redistribution through the tax system had offset 60% of the increase in inequality caused by market forces. But between 1995 and 2010, income tax systems failed to respond to the continuing increase in inequality.

It also said inequality should be tackled by giving a more pro-poor slant to public spending.

“Despite progress, gaps in access to quality education and healthcare services between different income groups in the population remain in many countries,” Gaspar and Garcia-Escribano said, adding that in rich countries men with university education lived up to 14 years longer than those with secondary education or less.

“Better public spending can help, for instance, by reallocating education or health spending from the rich to the poor while keeping total public education or health spending unchanged,” they added.

In its separate global financial stability review, the IMF said it would take several years for central banks to return interest rates to more normal levels due to the risk of aborting recovery.

But the report also highlighted the risk that prolonged monetary support could lead to the buildup of further financial excesses. Too much money was chasing too few assets offering a yield, the IMF said.

So empirical data supports higher taxes for the wealthy. What a surprise to find that the Tories on here have been spouting shit for months.

[Alf Bentley]

7 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Matt's right though, the EU aren't being reasonable but then why should they, they aren't the one breaking the deal. Again this is something that was foreseen by a number of people before triggering article 50 but we still seemed completely unprepared for it, apart from a few pithy sound bites. 

 

We should have been able to lead the negotiations away from the divorce bill by now,  either by committing to our best case scenario. The 10bn Euro figure that we have calculated. We put that on the table, sign it off as theirs on the proviso that a deal is reached within our time frame, and put the rest of the divorce payment on the back burner and start trade negotiations and other talks. Suddenly they have 10bn reasons to reach a deal and that deal will undoubtedly involve the UK paying more. No deal and we walk away keep the 10bn and make them fight through the courts for any settlement.

 

Or we do the opposite commit to their figure in principle and chip away at it during the next round of negotiations, either way it is a carrot for them to get the deal done. Bizarrely we started being all bullish in the run up, but have been pretty meek in reality, we would have been better off starting out conciliatory and then getting bullish if needed. We even picked the perfect leader for it, a remain voter who had kept out of the the referendum and was thrust into a shit situation that she needed to deal with. Instead of doing her best to placate the EU and try and work with them she postured around and pissed off everyone involved.

 

I completely agree with your second and third paragraphs about negotiating tactics. I presume that those threats and that posturing will have made the EU set the barrier for moving onto trade talks higher, due to their greater mistrust.

 

In what way do you feel that the EU is being unreasonable? In not agreeing to talks about a future trade deal alongside the Brexit negotiations or in response to May's Florence speech? They - and we - are under an obligation to negotiate the terms of our departure, but neither of us is obliged to negotiate a future trade deal. Hopefully both sides will want to do so, in their mutual interest, and will be prepared to make compromises. But it seems reasonable to expect fair terms to be negotiated on the terminated deal before making a significant commitment to a new deal - without the former there'll be no trust on which to build the latter (a new trade deal). If you had a mortgage and your mortgage company wrote to say that they were unilaterally terminating your existing mortgage deal - and that they'd be prepared to discuss fair terms for that termination only alongside negotiations over a new mortgage deal.....would that be a reasonable negotiating stance?

[Webbo]

13 minutes ago, toddybad said:

So empirical data supports higher taxes for the wealthy. What a surprise to find that the Tories on here have been spouting shit for months.

The IMF havn't  got a great track record with predictions.

[Guest]

Just now, Webbo said:

The IMF havn't  got a great track record with predictions.

They're looking at past evidence not predicting the future. Perhaps best to read the article?

[Webbo]

Just now, toddybad said:

They're looking at past evidence not predicting the future. Perhaps best to read the article?

I did read the article and they've still got a long track record of being wrong.

[fuchsntf]

14 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I did read the article and they've still got a long track record of being wrong.

"Experts"  especially in finance, are singularly plurally always wrong...The last crashes are proof, that the organisations dont understand ,Hence  in their power to Layout out Trends,

Or give out any reasonable accurate information.So dont expect the politician to handle,

the chaos.  

The markets  like water find their own level, but that also depends on the Nuisances

and varieties of the uncontrolled up and downs of the traders, brokers and big merchants, moods and swings leaning  to the wants on any particular day, week, or for a chase on those markets.IMF is full of twaddle, and high hand BS....

Well at least thats one opinion...

[Strokes]

IMF research found that between 1985 and 1995, redistribution through the tax system had offset 60% of the increase in inequality caused by market forces. But between 1995 and 2010, income tax systems failed to respond to the continuing increase in inequality.

It also said inequality should be tackled by giving a more pro-poor slant to public spending.

 

Interesting findings from the IMF.

 

So if the whole article is gospel, are we to believe that the torys and maggie did more to tackle wealth inequality than Labour and Blair/brown? 

Strange considering the hate poor maggie gets for it.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

IMF research found that between 1985 and 1995, redistribution through the tax system had offset 60% of the increase in inequality caused by market forces. But between 1995 and 2010, income tax systems failed to respond to the continuing increase in inequality.

It also said inequality should be tackled by giving a more pro-poor slant to public spending.

 

Interesting findings from the IMF.

 

So if the whole article is gospel, are we to believe that the torys and maggie did more to tackle wealth inequality than Labour and Blair/brown? 

Strange considering the hate poor maggie gets for it.

Higher corporation tax and top tax levels

[Sampson]

8 hours ago, toddybad said:

So empirical data supports higher taxes for the wealthy. What a surprise to find that the Tories on here have been spouting shit for months.

It's a research report by Vitor Gaspar - the former head of finance of Portugal who had to resign after implementing these plans sent Portugal further into recession and he was getting spat on in the streets for his Economic blunders. The researcher's very own empirical evidence goes against what it "proves".

 

And I don't think people have been arguing against higher taxation for the rich for more spending on primary and secondary education and healthcare on its own necessarily (especially of every nation did it at once rather than just the UK, whuch won't happen) - so much as higher taxation along with hiking up the minimum wage along with tax payer funded universities and nationalisation of several industry and large government spending on housing while rent caps push out landlords and drive down the quality of housing in the private sector within a few years is going to cause mass government spending - and it's hard to see how this won't affect small and medium.sized businesses as well, lead to inflation and more national debt over the long and medium term (as it did in the 70s) or how "small" taxation can generally cover this huge government spending over the medium and long term (and given what we know about Corbyn, MacDonnell and Abbott's beliefs - It's just hard to not to see them continuously spending long after the goals of the manifesto (which are always just primary targets) have been achieved or whenever the inevitable issues of government day to day arise).

 

The major worry I have about a Corbyn and MacDonnell (who is definitely the member if the Labour Party I mist have issue with) led Labour party is doing too much too quick - Thatcher absolutely was what the country needed in the late 70s and early 80s but her major failing was doing too much too quickly - (which is one of the problems as to why privitising the rail had so many issues) - and I find it hard to see how nationalising so much so quickly wouldn't have a similar impact.

 

If many of the policies in Labour's manifesto were set out over a number of years and not just over one term I think it would be much easier to swallow even if I strongly disagree with a lot of it.

 

But it's the old adage of evolution not revolution and it's why Boris Yeltsin was such a catastrophic failure and why China's economy has flourished as a result of the fall of Communism in a way Russia's didn't - because Russia tried to open it's markets up far too quickly whereas China has done it gradually over a number of decades - any quick shift in governmental philosophy or spending ends up doing more harm than good.

Edited 11 October 2017 by Sampson

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Sampson said:

It's a research report by Vitor Gaspar - the former head of finance of Portugal who had to resign after implementing these plans sent Portugal further into recession and he was getting spat on in the streets for his Economic blunders. The researcher's very own empirical evidence goes against what it "proves".

 

And I don't think people have been arguing against higher taxation for the rich for more spending on primary and secondary education and healthcare on its own necessarily (especially of every nation did it at once rather than just the UK, whuch won't happen) - so much as higher taxation along with hiking up the minimum wage along with tax payer funded universities and nationalisation of several industry and large government spending on housing while rent caps push out landlords and drive down the quality of housing in the private sector within a few years is going to cause mass government spending - and it's hard to see how this won't affect small and medium.sized businesses as well, lead to inflation and more national debt over the long and medium term (as it did in the 70s) or how "small" taxation can generally cover this huge government spending over the medium and long term (and given what we know about Corbyn, MacDonnell and Abbott's beliefs - It's just hard to not to see them continuously spending long after the goals of the manifesto (which are always just primary targets) have been achieved or whenever the inevitable issues of government day to day arise).

 

The major worry I have about a Corbyn and MacDonnell (who is definitely the member if the Labour Party I mist have issue with) led Labour party is doing too much too quick - Thatcher absolutely was what the country needed in the late 70s and early 80s but her major failing was doing too much too quickly - (which is one of the problems as to why privitising the rail had so many issues) - and I find it hard to see how nationalising so much so quickly wouldn't have a similar impact.

 

If many of the policies in Labour's manifesto were set out over a number of years and not just over one term I think it would be much easier to swallow even if I strongly disagree with a lot of it.

 

But it's the old adage of evolution not revolution and it's why Boris Yeltsin was such a catastrophic failure and why China's economy has flourished as a result of the fall of Communism in a way Russia's didn't - because Russia tried to open it's markets up far too quickly whereas China has done it gradually over a number of decades - any quick shift in governmental philosophy or spending ends up doing more harm than good.

I agree that their program should be over years - in actual fact some of it definately would be - bringing the railways back under our control as their contracts end, for example.

 

The problems I have with free market alternatives are:

that business has shown itself to act corruptly;

the benefit is always one measured in pounds and not quality;

public services in private hands means lower wages and therefore tax payers funding in-work benefits to subsidise profits;

Virtually every industry when regulations are cut sees cartels or monopolies which undermine all the theoretical benefits of the free market;

Profits benefiting the already rich rather than being used by the government.

 

This said, and as I've said before, I want McDonnell to take things at a pace that is realistic (though still revolutionary rather than evolutionary) whilst implementing changes in such a way as they can broadly be funded. All the big ticket items must remain but they do need to stop adding to the list at this point. Renationalisation, ending tuition fees, ending the public sector pay cap, properly funding the NHS, launching a national education service and increasing the minimum wage all need to happen. They've already gone for tax rises on the highest incomes, they need to look at other taxes to see how they can raise more funds and cut subsidies to dirty fuel industries. In fact, I would have thought the free marketers would agree to ending all industrial subsidies - though clean energy would be an exception.

 

 

 

[Captain...]

15 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I completely agree with your second and third paragraphs about negotiating tactics. I presume that those threats and that posturing will have made the EU set the barrier for moving onto trade talks higher, due to their greater mistrust.

 

In what way do you feel that the EU is being unreasonable? In not agreeing to talks about a future trade deal alongside the Brexit negotiations or in response to May's Florence speech? They - and we - are under an obligation to negotiate the terms of our departure, but neither of us is obliged to negotiate a future trade deal. Hopefully both sides will want to do so, in their mutual interest, and will be prepared to make compromises. But it seems reasonable to expect fair terms to be negotiated on the terminated deal before making a significant commitment to a new deal - without the former there'll be no trust on which to build the latter (a new trade deal). If you had a mortgage and your mortgage company wrote to say that they were unilaterally terminating your existing mortgage deal - and that they'd be prepared to discuss fair terms for that termination only alongside negotiations over a new mortgage deal.....would that be a reasonable negotiating stance?

It isn't the same situation, the closest analogy would be an actual divorce settlement where kids are involved. A man decides to divorce his wife because she is really controlling over what he can and can't do yet always leaves the door open so anyone can walk in. They have a 15 year old kid.

 

Now the man is happy to pay child maintenance but wants to know how much access he will get. He wants access to be 50/50 but if it is then in theory he should pay less maintenance because he is spending just as much time looking after the child. The woman on the other hand won't discuss access until he has committed to paying the full amount of maintenance until their child is 18 and also committed to helping pay for university as he was the one that filled their head with ideas of going to university. She is also demanding he helps out financially if the kid comes back from university and ends up living at home again. They also have a dog that was he agreed to getting she wants him to pay per maintenance as well. The man's priority is access to the child and can't really afford these payments as he has a massive debt, but he would pay that much and more for unlimited access to his kid, but this won't even be discussed until he has committed to a paying a disproportionate amount of money, with no guarantee of favourable access terms.

 

In that scenario the woman is being unreasonable.

[Guest MattP]

 

49 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I agree that their program should be over years - in actual fact some of it definately would be - bringing the railways back under our control as their contracts end, for example.

 

The problems I have with free market alternatives are:

that business has shown itself to act corruptly;

the benefit is always one measured in pounds and not quality;

public services in private hands means lower wages and therefore tax payers funding in-work benefits to subsidise profits;

Virtually every industry when regulations are cut sees cartels or monopolies which undermine all the theoretical benefits of the free market;

Profits benefiting the already rich rather than being used by the government.

 

This said, and as I've said before, I want McDonnell to take things at a pace that is realistic (though still revolutionary rather than evolutionary) whilst implementing changes in such a way as they can broadly be funded. All the big ticket items must remain but they do need to stop adding to the list at this point. Renationalisation, ending tuition fees, ending the public sector pay cap, properly funding the NHS, launching a national education service and increasing the minimum wage all need to happen. They've already gone for tax rises on the highest incomes, they need to look at other taxes to see how they can raise more funds and cut subsidies to dirty fuel industries. In fact, I would have thought the free marketers would agree to ending all industrial subsidies - though clean energy would be an exception.

I can't seriously believe that anyone can still want revolution rather than evolution when every country that has gone down that route has had an economic disaster, in reality if they want to enforce these plans they'll have to though I'll concede, we'll need to be outside the single market to enforce capital controls and probably have to reclaim powers from Mansion House to raise interest rates to guard against a run on the pound, I know he's talked about railway franchises being nationalised "as they end" but it's not going to happen, Labour aren't going to be in power until 2035 so if he wants to do this properly we'll need a lot more money.

 

I''m glad there is some acknowledgement now that the spending promises are getting a little bit ridiculous and need to stop but it's not going to happen, you heard him last week standing on a stage just adding billions and billions sentence by sentence whether it was bringing PFI contracts back etc

 

I still want to know what the back up plan is though, if wealth starts to leave us and the tax take (which despite the prediction above is highly likely in most economists predictions) drops does it then fall onto all us middle earners and the lowest paid? Do you cancel the ideas or do you just borrow more money and dump it on the future generations?

 

McDonnell has at least been honest about this, he has openly said he wants to bring the economic system down and even said he had "lived for days" like the banking crisis, to me it's akin to asking King Herod to look after your child voting him in as chancellor, it's fcuking mental the British population are considering this and reflects just how badly the Tories have managed things since the start of this year when only 24-25% were nuts enough to vote for this, I'm just glad the BoE etc has in the same way checks and balances have stopped Trump doing some of the things what he wants to do, even if I disagree that they should.

[Guest MattP]

 

Fairly interesting.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

I can't seriously believe that anyone can still want revolution rather than evolution when every country that has gone down that route has had an economic disaster, in reality if they want to enforce these plans they'll have to though I'll concede, we'll need to be outside the single market to enforce capital controls and probably have to reclaim powers from Mansion House to raise interest rates to guard against a run on the pound, I know he's talked about railway franchises being nationalised "as they end" but it's not going to happen, Labour aren't going to be in power until 2035 so if he wants to do this properly we'll need a lot more money.

 

I''m glad there is some acknowledgement now that the spending promises are getting a little bit ridiculous and need to stop but it's not going to happen, you heard him last week standing on a stage just adding billions and billions sentence by sentence whether it was bringing PFI contracts back etc

 

I still want to know what the back up plan is though, if wealth starts to leave us and the tax take (which despite the prediction above is highly likely in most economists predictions) drops does it then fall onto all us middle earners and the lowest paid? Do you cancel the ideas or do you just borrow more money and dump it on the future generations?

 

McDonnell has at least been honest about this, he has openly said he wants to bring the economic system down and even said he had "lived for days" like the banking crisis, to me it's akin to asking King Herod to look after your child voting him in as chancellor, it's fcuking mental the British population are considering this and reflects just how badly the Tories have managed things since the start of this year when only 24-25% were nuts enough to vote for this, I'm just glad the BoE etc has in the same way checks and balances have stopped Trump doing some of the things what he wants to do, even if I disagree that they should.

Just re the end of your post - it doesn't just reflect on the Tories this year imo. Until labour launched their manifesto they were dead in the water. When it came out it was so fundamentally different and dealt with the issues people are concerned about in society - predominantly the feeling that we're basically an underclass here to serve the rich. 

 

It is the failure of the current economic model to deal with the fact that prosperity for one or two generations was unsustainable and brought about by screwing future generations. It is a direct failure of the politics that had existed since the 1980s. National assets were sold off, council houses sold, even the gold sold. And at the time many did handsomely from all this. But now there's nothing left to sell (or at least only the things previously considered unsellable like health and education) and there's nothing left for future generations. That fuels anger and leads to people wanting fundamental change. This is the reason I keep saying the Tories need to find a way of moving away from thatcherism.

Edited 12 October 2017 by Guest

[Guest MattP]

Just now, toddybad said:

Just re the end of your post - it doesn't just reflect on the Tories this year imo. Until labour launched their manifesto they were dead in the water. When it came out it was so fundamentally different and dealt with the issues people are concerned about in society - predominantly the feeling that we're basically an underclass here to serve the rich. 

 

It is the failure of the current economic model to deal with the fact that prosperity for one or two generations was unsustainable and brought about by screwing future generations. It is a direct failure of the politics that had existed since the 1980s. National assets were sold off, council houses sold, even the child sold. And at the time many did handsomely from all this. But now there's nothing left to sell (or at least only the things previously considered unsolvable like health and education) and there's nothing left for future generations. That fuels anger and leads to people wanting fundamental change. This is the reason I keep saying the Tories need to find a way of moving away from thatcherism.

Can you answer the bit about what the back-up plan would be if you fail to collect the tax? It's pretty important given it's highly likely.

[Fox Ulike]

21 hours ago, Strokes said:

Well you can know what you were voting for, if a) the economic model is of no concern to you or b) you want a no deal.

Nobody voted to be poorer, and nobody voted for a 'no deal'.

 

It was unconceivable after the referendum, that we wouldn't be able to arrange a trade deal with our biggest trade partner. I think we should have been entitled to expect a basic level of competence from the Government.

 

The more I think about the referendum, the more confused I feel about it. Or rather, the more confused I am about people's determination to abide by the result, regardless of the consequences.

 

 "Leave on WTO terms" wasn't on the referendum ballot paper. Neither was "Leave with no deal."

 

I certainly wouldn't feel bound by the "will of the people" if either of those scenarios came to pass.

[Alf Bentley]

16 minutes ago, Captain... said:

It isn't the same situation, the closest analogy would be an actual divorce settlement where kids are involved. A man decides to divorce his wife because she is really controlling over what he can and can't do yet always leaves the door open so anyone can walk in. They have a 15 year old kid.

 

Now the man is happy to pay child maintenance but wants to know how much access he will get. He wants access to be 50/50 but if it is then in theory he should pay less maintenance because he is spending just as much time looking after the child. The woman on the other hand won't discuss access until he has committed to paying the full amount of maintenance until their child is 18 and also committed to helping pay for university as he was the one that filled their head with ideas of going to university. She is also demanding he helps out financially if the kid comes back from university and ends up living at home again. They also have a dog that was he agreed to getting she wants him to pay per maintenance as well. The man's priority is access to the child and can't really afford these payments as he has a massive debt, but he would pay that much and more for unlimited access to his kid, but this won't even be discussed until he has committed to a paying a disproportionate amount of money, with no guarantee of favourable access terms.

 

In that scenario the woman is being unreasonable.

 

We'll probably have to agree to disagree, but I find this a false analogy:

- Provided he's not dangerous, a divorcing father will have a legal right to future access to his child (though the focus is on the child's needs), whereas neither the UK nor the EU has a right to insist on a future trade deal, which is entirely voluntary (though a good idea).

- A divorcing father will be paying maintenance towards the future care of his child, whereas the "divorce payment" the UK is being asked for relates to commitments during the marriage (though there are grey areas up for negotiation re. spending/projects taking place both during and after the EU/UK marriage - the equivalent of your university support and dog)

- Just as the man in your scenario can cite financial difficulties, so can the woman (the EU)

- Whether EU demands are disproportionately high or UK offers are disproportionately low are a matter of opinion. Information emerging from negotiations seems insufficient to judge.

- In a divorce, there is a de facto connection between maintenance and access (though not legally, I think). In the Brexit scenario, there is no essential connection between the divorce payment and future access to the EU, which depends on separate negotiations, which might or might not take place (but hopefully will)

 

I'm not trying to claim that the EU is entirely in the right and the UK in the wrong. If the EU takes an intransigent stance on UK funding of post-Brexit commitments, it will be in the wrong. If it intransigently avoids negotiations over future trade, it will be stupidly harming itself and us. But things haven't even reached that stage, have they? We're still debating the calculation of the divorce payment, not future EU projects, officials' pensions etc. Plus, I must stress: the EU is under no obligation whatsoever to discuss a future trade deal. Although it would be damaging to everyone's interests, the EU is perfectly entitled to simply say "we don't want any future trade deal". The only obligation on both sides is to negotiate the terms of the Brexit divorce.

 

What you said before makes more sense to me: strategically, the UK would be better advised to be more generous in the divorce negotiations in order to accelerate progress to negotiations over future trade. After all, nothing agreed re. divorce payments will be written in stone until ratified by the UK parliament, European Council and European Parliament.

 

Btw. Your analogy is unwittingly ironic. I've been involved in divorce negotiations for 6 months! In my case, "the woman" has been unreasonable about capital, but reasonable about access and maintenance. Fingers crossed negotiations are (finally) making better progress than EU v. UK!  

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, MattP said:

Can you answer the bit about what the back-up plan would be if you fail to collect the tax? It's pretty important given it's highly likely.

Matt I'm not in government and I don't have access to the Treasury. You're also happy to refuse to answer the same questions around Brexit. Presumably you'd slow the pace of change and/or set priorities. I'm not convinced it is highly likely though. The tax increases they've talked about so far are not so great as to drive business out of the UK. As I've said before, corporation tax would be going up to a level not seen since (gasp) about 2012....there would also be a much smaller increase on small businesses.