Westminster Election 12th December 2019

[RadioGAAGAA]

Yet virtually all of Labour's prescriptions to tackle these challenges are misguided. Mr Corbyn's original sin is to cast private enterprise as a necessary evil to be managed rather than being part of the solution to the problems his party has identified. The assault on business is an attack on wealth creation.

Second, the nationalisation programme goes far beyond anything contemplated in a generation. True, private monopolies in rail and water have fallen short in performance. There is a case for re-regulation or indeed re-examining ownership; but to extend nationalisation to the energy utilities, broadband and Royal Mail is an unwarranted interference which will shatter confidence and deter investment.

It has been shown over time that private companies running:
- rail
- water
- broadband
- mail

Have resulted in worse performance for more public outlay.


Now while the FT may make some* valid points about investment etc - I will say this - do you think the author of that article is among those that is gonna be taxed more or not? You must consider that and then read the article.


*but not all. One of the more fundamental maxims of economics is - improve infrastructure and you improve conditions for investment. So if the railways were working better, the roads were better, buses were better, if everyone did have fast broadband... then infrastructure is improved. That tends to attract businesses.


Does Norway or Denmark have trouble attracting investment despite their higher tax rates?

[seafoid]

Missed this Financial Times link from Seafoid 


Labours manifesto adds up to a recipe for decline

www.FT.com

The Labour party manifesto is nothing more than a blueprint for socialism in one country. The combination of punitive tax increases, sweeping nationalisation, and the end of Thatcher-era union reforms turn the clock back 40 years. Set alongside a vast expansion of the state — based on spending amounting to six per cent of national income — Labour's plans are a recipe for terminal economic decline.

Whereas previous Labour leaders, from Tony Blair to Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband, accepted the market economy, the hard left clique around Jeremy Corbyn have elected to replace it with their own statist model. This owes more to François Mitterrand's socialist programme in 1981 than to a realistic prescription for reforming a modern economy, still less preserving the UK's treasured status as a beacon for foreign investment.

The tragedy of Jeremy Corbyn's Labour party, like so many populist movements, is that it does identify areas that genuinely need fixing. Nearly a decade after the Conservatives returned to power, real wages have still not returned to their pre-crisis peak. Homelessness has risen. Basic public services such the criminal justice system, social care and local government are dire. Privatised water and rail companies are not delivering for users. Large parts of the population feel excluded from the bright spots of prosperity, mainly in the south-east.


Yet virtually all of Labour's prescriptions to tackle these challenges are misguided. Mr Corbyn's original sin is to cast private enterprise as a necessary evil to be managed rather than being part of the solution to the problems his party has identified. The assault on business is an attack on wealth creation.

First, Labour is proposing a staggering increase in taxes — close to £83bn a year by 2023-24, with the bulk coming from higher levies on business investment, much of it being squeezed out of the private sector in year one.

Second, the nationalisation programme goes far beyond anything contemplated in a generation. True, private monopolies in rail and water have fallen short in performance. There is a case for re-regulation or indeed re-examining ownership; but to extend nationalisation to the energy utilities, broadband and Royal Mail is an unwarranted interference which will shatter confidence and deter investment.

Third, the party proposes collective sectoral bargaining over pay and conditions, claiming this "will increase wages and reduce inequality". It would instead stifle innovation and lock workers out of employment. Similarly, plans for rent control would advantage "insiders" who already rent and push "outsiders" into an unregulated black market.

In some areas, the manifesto is less radical than expected. It has dropped the fantasy target of hitting net zero carbon emissions by 2030, which would require a hugely expensive and near-impossible transformation of the economy. Also gone are proposals to bring private schools into the state sector, and a mooted idea to give private tenants a right to buy their home from their landlord. On security and defence it commits to renewing Trident, remaining part of Nato and keeping to the alliance's target for military spending of 2 per cent of national income.

The British economy is not broken. It has proven remarkably resilient in the face of Brexit uncertainty. Labour's plans would exponentially increase the risks to the economy. A responsible centre-left programme to restore fairness and opportunity, to rebuild public services, and preserve private sector incentives, was there for the taking. Mr Corbyn has missed an open goal.

It certainly is.
Wages are still 10% lower in real terms vs 2007.
Despite very low unemployment tax receipts did not benefit. Why? Because productivity has been flat for over a decade.
https://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/18053943.foodbank-plea-donations-marlborough-supermarket-appeal/
The UK economy is banjaxed. It's as bad as Ballymena.

[magpie seanie]

That FT article is what you'd expect. The usual rubbish about wealth creators leaving etc. Saying "the British Economy is not broken" tells you all you need to know about the author. It's not broken for those who read the FT perhaps. No one likes paying more than they have before but to fix things, those who can afford to are going to have to pay a bit more. Or else the problems can be left unaddressed to get worse and the vast majority of people "can eat cake". Any right thinking person cannot let this famine economics hold sway any longer. In 40/50 years time (or sooner) a lot of people are going to have no jobs so don't think because you're doing ok now because you're a hard worker and have worked hard to get where you are that it'll continue into the future. Radical change is needed as the changes coming to our world in the next 20/30/40 years are going to be mind blowing and come oat us faster and faster. Current economic models are failing badly today and the future looks exponentially worse for that type of model.

Corbyn and Labours policies are actually moderate enough. It's just that the vast majority of media is through the extreme right wing laissez faire lens of city spivs and Eton grandees so terms like "communist" get thrown around like snuff at a wake....

[Hound]

Wages are still 10% lower in real terms vs 2007.
The UK economy is banjaxed.

So "real" wages are lower than at the height of a completely unsustainable boom, and that means the economy is banjaxed?!

There's absolutely no intention to do any kind of reasonable analysis when using 2007 as a benchmark. You need to be an idiot or to think you're talking with gullible idiots, if you use that as your benchmark to make your point.

[yellowcard]

I see in the Irish News that Doug Beattie at a unionist/loyalist protest meeting during the week was asked to ''use his military experience to drill them!!'' Precisely what for I don't know but they are doing their best to ramp things up and I've never heard such rabble rousing rhetoric from the Unionist side than what we have heard in the last few weeks. It's the tail firmly wagging the dog as loyalism appears to have taken over the DUP and their short term desperation to win an extra seat in an election that will very unlikely have any real significance on the outcome of Brexit (which is what the election is all about) will once again be their downfall. They are increasingly beginning to look like relics who want to harp back to the conflict. In many ways they require such conflict to create new artificial bogeymen. When this election campaign is over politicians like Dodds & Donaldson can no longer claim the moral high ground since they have cavorted and flirted with hard elements of  loyalism for the price of a few extra votes.   

I'd be very happy with the nationalist/republican political response so far in not taking the bait and engaging them too much in the green v orange and name calling debate which they so badly want. It might not be rewarded with electorate gain but the battle for the middle ground is moving firmly in the direction of nationalists.

[seafoid]

Wages are still 10% lower in real terms vs 2007.
The UK economy is banjaxed.

So "real" wages are lower than at the height of a completely unsustainable boom, and that means the economy is banjaxed?!

There's absolutely no intention to do any kind of reasonable analysis when using 2007 as a benchmark. You need to be an idiot or to think you're talking with gullible idiots, if you use that as your benchmark to make your point.

How's UK productivity, Hound?
Have you had a look at the UK current account recently
Or total debt to GDP?

[Kidder81]

That FT article is what you'd expect. The usual rubbish about wealth creators leaving etc. Saying "the British Economy is not broken" tells you all you need to know about the author. It's not broken for those who read the FT perhaps. No one likes paying more than they have before but to fix things, those who can afford to are going to have to pay a bit more. Or else the problems can be left unaddressed to get worse and the vast majority of people "can eat cake". Any right thinking person cannot let this famine economics hold sway any longer. In 40/50 years time (or sooner) a lot of people are going to have no jobs so don't think because you're doing ok now because you're a hard worker and have worked hard to get where you are that it'll continue into the future. Radical change is needed as the changes coming to our world in the next 20/30/40 years are going to be mind blowing and come oat us faster and faster. Current economic models are failing badly today and the future looks exponentially worse for that type of model.

Corbyn and Labours policies are actually moderate enough. It's just that the vast majority of media is through the extreme right wing laissez faire lens of city spivs and Eton grandees so terms like "communist" get thrown around like snuff at a wake....

Institute for Fiscal Studies right wing loons? They said Labours manifesto spending colossal and not credible, thats "moderate"? What planet are you on

[seafoid]

That FT article is what you'd expect. The usual rubbish about wealth creators leaving etc. Saying "the British Economy is not broken" tells you all you need to know about the author. It's not broken for those who read the FT perhaps. No one likes paying more than they have before but to fix things, those who can afford to are going to have to pay a bit more. Or else the problems can be left unaddressed to get worse and the vast majority of people "can eat cake". Any right thinking person cannot let this famine economics hold sway any longer. In 40/50 years time (or sooner) a lot of people are going to have no jobs so don't think because you're doing ok now because you're a hard worker and have worked hard to get where you are that it'll continue into the future. Radical change is needed as the changes coming to our world in the next 20/30/40 years are going to be mind blowing and come oat us faster and faster. Current economic models are failing badly today and the future looks exponentially worse for that type of model.

Corbyn and Labours policies are actually moderate enough. It's just that the vast majority of media is through the extreme right wing laissez faire lens of city spivs and Eton grandees so terms like "communist" get thrown around like snuff at a wake....

Institute for Fiscal Studies right wing loons? They said Labours manifesto spending colossal and not credible, thats "moderate"? What planet are you on

They are neoliberal rentagobs

"The rich are different but they pay a lot of tax"
Not very deep thinkers either

[smelmoth]

I thought Corbyn did ok but just OK in the head to head debate. Johnson just seemed to lie and get away with it. Corbyn (with 1 exception) give honest answers that I would be in full agreement with. The Brexit question he did not handle well. There was nothing wrong with what he did say but the problem is what he didn't say. Labour have a sensible Brexit policy and Corbyn could have made a better fist at setting out that policy. He wrongly allowed Johnson to get traction with the crowd and create a sense that Corby want answering the question. He did answer it but he didn't answer it well enough.

The Tory "factcheck" nonsense really shows what a despicable shower they are.

Labour manifesto is based upon assumption that their Tax rates would generate a particular tax revenue. All other manifestos (well assuming that a party actually bothers to issue a manifesto and its costings) are done in this basis. IFS will challenge the tax take figure. They always will. That isn't the real question. The real question is when faced woth reduced tax reveues does a future government borrow to fill the gap or cut spending and which spending pledges get compromised first. Given Labour have committed to not borrowing more for everyday expenses the real question here is the ranking of spending priorities.

[smelmoth]

Just read the last 3 pages there. Some staggering stuff.

The notion that NI will not be hugely expensive for RoI to take on is I presume a joke. NI costs GB £11bn p.a. That's roughly £180 per head in GB but £6,100 per head in RoI. Pretty significant difference. People in GB more or less get the public services that NI get. This isn't the case in RoI. RoI taxpayers would have to pay into a system to deliver services in NI that they wouldn't get in RoI.

Reliance on GB to stand-on to fund a NI that is outside UK would need to be substantiated. Have UK committed to do so? Can they commit to do so before the 2 referenda? Are people to blithely expect GB to stand on when they vote in a referendum and then find out later whether the hope will be realised? Talk here that NI would not have to take part of the GB national debt with it is based upon what exactly? Talk that GB would have to honour the pensions of people living in NI would be based on what exactly?  Using examples of people living in county X and then emigrating to county B isn't really the same as what we are talking about here.   
 
Put simply I cannot see how anyone in RoI could vote for a UI without certainty on these issues and I cannot see how a UK government could give that certainty. Any promise by the UK government to part fund NI within a UI is likely to face legal challenge. UK has responsibilities under GFA and effectively incentivising a change in the constitutional   position would certainly face legal scrutiny. What way that would go I don't know. In the interim I would think it dangerous to rely simply on the fact that HM Treasury would have a financial incentive to ditch NI. The incentive might not prove enough. Judges will have their say.

Separately the very idea that there would be no "British Interference" in  a UI is also laughable. People need to get their head around the fact that in every possible likelihood a UI continues to involve a NI but devolved form Dublin rather and London with GB taking up the role that RoI currently take with the North/South and East/West bodies continuing to play their minor roles. The reality is that the NI structures will be maintained in such a way that would facilitate NI voting a future date to leave a UI. GFA is based upon the principle of consent of the people of NI not the "principle of consent up to the point where consent is given for a UI at which point its simple majority rule with the majority being established on a 32 county basis.

SF do indeed make it clear that they are an abstentionist party.  That isn't sufficient to make the whole issue go away. I know what my attitude would be to a Unionist party that stood on an abstentionist basis in NI elections for seats in a future Dublin legislative assembly.  My attitude to SF is exactly the same.

[Kidder81]

That FT article is what you'd expect. The usual rubbish about wealth creators leaving etc. Saying "the British Economy is not broken" tells you all you need to know about the author. It's not broken for those who read the FT perhaps. No one likes paying more than they have before but to fix things, those who can afford to are going to have to pay a bit more. Or else the problems can be left unaddressed to get worse and the vast majority of people "can eat cake". Any right thinking person cannot let this famine economics hold sway any longer. In 40/50 years time (or sooner) a lot of people are going to have no jobs so don't think because you're doing ok now because you're a hard worker and have worked hard to get where you are that it'll continue into the future. Radical change is needed as the changes coming to our world in the next 20/30/40 years are going to be mind blowing and come oat us faster and faster. Current economic models are failing badly today and the future looks exponentially worse for that type of model.

Corbyn and Labours policies are actually moderate enough. It's just that the vast majority of media is through the extreme right wing laissez faire lens of city spivs and Eton grandees so terms like "communist" get thrown around like snuff at a wake....

Institute for Fiscal Studies right wing loons? They said Labours manifesto spending colossal and not credible, thats "moderate"? What planet are you on

They are neoliberal rentagobs

"The rich are different but they pay a lot of tax"
Not very deep thinkers either

Would probably put a bit more stock in their expertise that yours, no offence

[seafoid]

Just read the last 3 pages there. Some staggering stuff.

The notion that NI will not be hugely expensive for RoI to take on is I presume a joke. NI costs GB £11bn p.a. That's roughly £180 per head in GB but £6,100 per head in RoI. Pretty significant difference. People in GB more or less get the public services that NI get. This isn't the case in RoI. RoI taxpayers would have to pay into a system to deliver services in NI that they wouldn't get in RoI.

Reliance on GB to stand-on to fund a NI that is outside UK would need to be substantiated. Have UK committed to do so? Can they commit to do so before the 2 referenda? Are people to blithely expect GB to stand on when they vote in a referendum and then find out later whether the hope will be realised? Talk here that NI would not have to take part of the GB national debt with it is based upon what exactly? Talk that GB would have to honour the pensions of people living in NI would be based on what exactly?  Using examples of people living in county X and then emigrating to county B isn't really the same as what we are talking about here.   
 
Put simply I cannot see how anyone in RoI could vote for a UI without certainty on these issues and I cannot see how a UK government could give that certainty. Any promise by the UK government to part fund NI within a UI is likely to face legal challenge. UK has responsibilities under GFA and effectively incentivising a change in the constitutional   position would certainly face legal scrutiny. What way that would go I don't know. In the interim I would think it dangerous to rely simply on the fact that HM Treasury would have a financial incentive to ditch NI. The incentive might not prove enough. Judges will have their say.

Separately the very idea that there would be no "British Interference" in  a UI is also laughable. People need to get their head around the fact that in every possible likelihood a UI continues to involve a NI but devolved form Dublin rather and London with GB taking up the role that RoI currently take with the North/South and East/West bodies continuing to play their minor roles. The reality is that the NI structures will be maintained in such a way that would facilitate NI voting a future date to leave a UI. GFA is based upon the principle of consent of the people of NI not the "principle of consent up to the point where consent is given for a UI at which point its simple majority rule with the majority being established on a 32 county basis.

SF do indeed make it clear that they are an abstentionist party.  That isn't sufficient to make the whole issue go away. I know what my attitude would be to a Unionist party that stood on an abstentionist basis in NI elections for seats in a future Dublin legislative assembly.  My attitude to SF is exactly the same.

NI was basically ignored economically by the Brits for the last while.They just threw money at it. Blue collar Protestant productivity is very poor. Thatcherism didn't suit the 6 counties. If NI was part of a UI ,Derry, Newry etc and the towns on the other side of the border would benefit.

Gross Value Added is a recognised measure related to
productivity and in 2017 NÍ GVA was 23% below the UK average and had the slowest growth over the previous decade.
Thé EU would chip in with funds to address this. Plus Thatcherism is dying

[yellowcard]

Just read the last 3 pages there. Some staggering stuff.

The notion that NI will not be hugely expensive for RoI to take on is I presume a joke. NI costs GB £11bn p.a. That's roughly £180 per head in GB but £6,100 per head in RoI. Pretty significant difference. People in GB more or less get the public services that NI get. This isn't the case in RoI. RoI taxpayers would have to pay into a system to deliver services in NI that they wouldn't get in RoI.

Reliance on GB to stand-on to fund a NI that is outside UK would need to be substantiated. Have UK committed to do so? Can they commit to do so before the 2 referenda? Are people to blithely expect GB to stand on when they vote in a referendum and then find out later whether the hope will be realised? Talk here that NI would not have to take part of the GB national debt with it is based upon what exactly? Talk that GB would have to honour the pensions of people living in NI would be based on what exactly?  Using examples of people living in county X and then emigrating to county B isn't really the same as what we are talking about here.   
 
Put simply I cannot see how anyone in RoI could vote for a UI without certainty on these issues and I cannot see how a UK government could give that certainty. Any promise by the UK government to part fund NI within a UI is likely to face legal challenge. UK has responsibilities under GFA and effectively incentivising a change in the constitutional   position would certainly face legal scrutiny. What way that would go I don't know. In the interim I would think it dangerous to rely simply on the fact that HM Treasury would have a financial incentive to ditch NI. The incentive might not prove enough. Judges will have their say.

Separately the very idea that there would be no "British Interference" in  a UI is also laughable. People need to get their head around the fact that in every possible likelihood a UI continues to involve a NI but devolved form Dublin rather and London with GB taking up the role that RoI currently take with the North/South and East/West bodies continuing to play their minor roles. The reality is that the NI structures will be maintained in such a way that would facilitate NI voting a future date to leave a UI. GFA is based upon the principle of consent of the people of NI not the "principle of consent up to the point where consent is given for a UI at which point its simple majority rule with the majority being established on a 32 county basis.

SF do indeed make it clear that they are an abstentionist party.  That isn't sufficient to make the whole issue go away. I know what my attitude would be to a Unionist party that stood on an abstentionist basis in NI elections for seats in a future Dublin legislative assembly.  My attitude to SF is exactly the same.

So you're saying that a UI could effectively be reversed if it was decided after reunification to call another border poll whereby the previously subsumed 6 counties and the 26 counties could together decide to go back to the reimposition of the border? Honestly never knew that, in that case there will never be a final settlement under the current provisions. Probably an irrelevance since demographics are only going in one direction but it wasn't something I was aware of.

[Eamonnca1]

Just read the last 3 pages there. Some staggering stuff.

The notion that NI will not be hugely expensive for RoI to take on is I presume a joke. NI costs GB £11bn p.a. That's roughly £180 per head in GB but £6,100 per head in RoI. Pretty significant difference. People in GB more or less get the public services that NI get. This isn't the case in RoI. RoI taxpayers would have to pay into a system to deliver services in NI that they wouldn't get in RoI.

Reliance on GB to stand-on to fund a NI that is outside UK would need to be substantiated. Have UK committed to do so? Can they commit to do so before the 2 referenda? Are people to blithely expect GB to stand on when they vote in a referendum and then find out later whether the hope will be realised? Talk here that NI would not have to take part of the GB national debt with it is based upon what exactly? Talk that GB would have to honour the pensions of people living in NI would be based on what exactly?  Using examples of people living in county X and then emigrating to county B isn't really the same as what we are talking about here.   
 
Put simply I cannot see how anyone in RoI could vote for a UI without certainty on these issues and I cannot see how a UK government could give that certainty. Any promise by the UK government to part fund NI within a UI is likely to face legal challenge. UK has responsibilities under GFA and effectively incentivising a change in the constitutional   position would certainly face legal scrutiny. What way that would go I don't know. In the interim I would think it dangerous to rely simply on the fact that HM Treasury would have a financial incentive to ditch NI. The incentive might not prove enough. Judges will have their say.

Separately the very idea that there would be no "British Interference" in  a UI is also laughable. People need to get their head around the fact that in every possible likelihood a UI continues to involve a NI but devolved form Dublin rather and London with GB taking up the role that RoI currently take with the North/South and East/West bodies continuing to play their minor roles. The reality is that the NI structures will be maintained in such a way that would facilitate NI voting a future date to leave a UI. GFA is based upon the principle of consent of the people of NI not the "principle of consent up to the point where consent is given for a UI at which point its simple majority rule with the majority being established on a 32 county basis.

SF do indeed make it clear that they are an abstentionist party.  That isn't sufficient to make the whole issue go away. I know what my attitude would be to a Unionist party that stood on an abstentionist basis in NI elections for seats in a future Dublin legislative assembly.  My attitude to SF is exactly the same.

That is incorrect. The GFA makes no provision for NI rejoining the UK at a future time. Once a UI, always a UI. That's the deal. If anyone has any issues with that, take it up with David Trimble and tell him he should have negotiated harder.

[Eamonnca1]

Just read the last 3 pages there. Some staggering stuff.

The notion that NI will not be hugely expensive for RoI to take on is I presume a joke. NI costs GB £11bn p.a. That's roughly £180 per head in GB but £6,100 per head in RoI. Pretty significant difference. People in GB more or less get the public services that NI get. This isn't the case in RoI. RoI taxpayers would have to pay into a system to deliver services in NI that they wouldn't get in RoI.

Reliance on GB to stand-on to fund a NI that is outside UK would need to be substantiated. Have UK committed to do so? Can they commit to do so before the 2 referenda? Are people to blithely expect GB to stand on when they vote in a referendum and then find out later whether the hope will be realised? Talk here that NI would not have to take part of the GB national debt with it is based upon what exactly? Talk that GB would have to honour the pensions of people living in NI would be based on what exactly?  Using examples of people living in county X and then emigrating to county B isn't really the same as what we are talking about here.   
 
Put simply I cannot see how anyone in RoI could vote for a UI without certainty on these issues and I cannot see how a UK government could give that certainty. Any promise by the UK government to part fund NI within a UI is likely to face legal challenge. UK has responsibilities under GFA and effectively incentivising a change in the constitutional   position would certainly face legal scrutiny. What way that would go I don't know. In the interim I would think it dangerous to rely simply on the fact that HM Treasury would have a financial incentive to ditch NI. The incentive might not prove enough. Judges will have their say.

Separately the very idea that there would be no "British Interference" in  a UI is also laughable. People need to get their head around the fact that in every possible likelihood a UI continues to involve a NI but devolved form Dublin rather and London with GB taking up the role that RoI currently take with the North/South and East/West bodies continuing to play their minor roles. The reality is that the NI structures will be maintained in such a way that would facilitate NI voting a future date to leave a UI. GFA is based upon the principle of consent of the people of NI not the "principle of consent up to the point where consent is given for a UI at which point its simple majority rule with the majority being established on a 32 county basis.

SF do indeed make it clear that they are an abstentionist party.  That isn't sufficient to make the whole issue go away. I know what my attitude would be to a Unionist party that stood on an abstentionist basis in NI elections for seats in a future Dublin legislative assembly.  My attitude to SF is exactly the same.

So you're saying that a UI could effectively be reversed if it was decided after reunification to call another border poll whereby the previously subsumed 6 counties and the 26 counties could together decide to go back to the reimposition of the border? Honestly never knew that, in that case there will never be a final settlement under the current provisions. Probably an irrelevance since demographics are only going in one direction but it wasn't something I was aware of.

You weren't aware of it because there's no such thing.