123456
Last edited:
General Election 2017 | Cabinet reshuffle: Hunt re-appointed Health Secretary for record third time
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
Is diplomatic pressure not a more effective way of changing the course of foreign politics? What happens if the West walk away from dealings with Saudi Arabia and impose sanctions? Do innocent people stop dying and everything becomes perfect or do you see continued suffering and more instability like in North Korea?
Moral positions in global geopolitics are simple answers to hugely complex questions. Granted that the UK's current position is entirely self serving but that doesn't mean that walking away is the best thing to do.
It's a tax and spend manifesto, one I reckon probably wins them the leadership again after the election. Arguing for valence issues against it will be pretty tough in the face of the party members.
With Labour close to their 2015 result according to current polls & a feel good (for lefties) manifesto, I'd say there's a decent chance Labour members will be prepared to give him another go.
Sorry you've been through all that mate. You sound like a good bloke and I admire your optimism. Hope things continue getting better.
I don't think a political sanction like refusing to sell them arms is undeserved under the circumstances. If not this, when are political sanctions fair or warranted?
I just find it odd when there are many holes you may want to pick in the manifesto... that one of your main concerns is that we must continue selling arms to an oppressive regime that kills innocent people.
According to the Bank of England... public holidays are roughly economically neutral as the cost of lower productivity is offset by increased spending on those days. As I've said before... employment costs will go up but spending will too. Austerity and stagnating wages have hardly helped the economic recovery in this country as you will have noticed. Maybe it is time to try something different and I don't think the proposals should be dismissed as having a negative economic impact when it's not a zero sum game. Corporation tax was significantly higher 20 years ago and yet growth in GDP was good.
I note that they've found a nicer sounding version of "controls on immigration"
corbyns car ran over a bbc cameramans foot 
i know it's not his fault but it's just what he needs
i know it's not his fault but it's just what he needs
If you've seen that report Id love to have sight of it, Ive looked around and couldn't find it, or even reference to it. I found a DCMS report calculating the cost of one additional bank holiday as having a net impact of a £1.2bn loss, all things considered. Other reports Ive seen put it at £2.3bn loss, but Ive seen none that make a net profit (this includes extra shopping and the like btw).
More generally, sure, what the Tories have been doing hasn't worked very well (though we shouldn't ignore the number of jobs created, even if they are too often low paid and insecure[edited]). However that doesn't meant that any old thing is better. As I say, if Labour have done their sums it should be demonstrable that their plan will stack up. McDonnell made the point today that the costings aren't included in the leaked draft & won't be available til the final version, so we should know more next week.
Last edited:
Have some morals, let's not help them kill people for money
I have already been through this with zupzup.
Corbyn's position would be meaningless in real terms to the people of Yemen. Moral positions are simplistic against complex geopolitical situations.
Should Corbyn not use the diplomatic leverage that the UK has through trade relations to try to influence SA into being better global citizens, or at least try as a first measure?
Sounds like he and his followers are primarily concerned with maintaining their own perceived sense of moral purity. See his vote on the 1999 military intervention in Kosovo for an example.
Last edited:
Whats the point in re-nationalising the royal mail?
Well when you put it like that perhaps we should lift all other sanctions? Tough times ahead why not sell to more regimes.
As for the corp tax point, to what level do you think we ahould lower it to for competitive advantage? What is the maximum you think we can tolerate without significant impact?
Because we can!
The passage in the manifesto is here anyway (this is the only mention I can find):
The same reason we have any public services i imagine, ensure decent services in this case to the country folm. Its not an issue i particularly care about compared to rail and energy tbh.
The sale was a huge mistake particularly around the pensions but i don't think that means it should be reversed.
https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9206
The raise on corporation tax in Labour's manifesto doesn't seem that bad when looking at this graph. We'd still have lower corporation tax than all of the G7 countries and a number of other EU countries.
I kind of expected something like that. Stuff like rail and electricity are very difficult topics. Both sides have good arguments and it is not entire clear which model is the best. Yet the privatisation of mail services was unambiguously successful in other countries. The majority of concerns, that support public ownership, simply don’t apply.
Do we impose any unilateral sanctions on any other country?
Corporation tax increase is just part of a broader range of measures that will make the UK unattractive to investors in the light of Brexit. @Unmutual listed a more detailed explanation.
@Denis Irwin
Your graphs also show that we would be uncompetitive against several EU member states, the states that will be trying to entice companies away from the UK after Brexit.
Last edited:
The Guardian have changed tune, they like the manifesto it seems. Be good if the rest of the campaign focused on policy
North Korea? Iran i think was lifted but im sure there must be others, African countries perhaps. Point still stands though you fine with us flogging more or is it just the status quo you like?
I don't think people should be making claims about the effects of raising as negative and lowering positive unless they hold a position on the rates. Unless the current rates just so happens to fit in with your ideal? Otherwise you're just saying "i dont know the what best rate is but it definetely shouldn't change".
Do you think we should lower it further?
It's one of those things that poll well but no-one actually cares about. But it'll be ideological for Corbyn and McDonnell.
Our sanctions against North Korea are not unilateral are they? Sanctions are usually taken by a bloc of countries so they actually have some impact as opposed to moral posturing that makes no difference.
Labour want to increase the corporation tax rate above several EU countries, these countries will be looking to entice business away from the UK after Brexit so yes we might have to lower it further than it is currently.
I don't see the point on wasting money on bringing them back into public ownership. They claim they were sold on the cheap and they would have to buy them back at market rate, which is expensive. Unless they make up some law that allows them to steal the stock back on the cheap.
I don't know how it could be implemented, but I feel it would be only fair for all companies and corporations that operate in the UK to actually pay the same taxes on profits made in the UK - regardless of onshore/offshore status. Big business currently has a massive and unfair competitive edge over UK based SMEs.
Ok, so we lower corporate tax even further... after all, Ireland is only 12.5% and have the benefit of the single market. We want to be competitive, no?! Do you think there will be no recriminations from getting into a battle with our European neighbours over corporate tax rates? Suddenly we'll soon find the EU, in retaliation for us lowering the corporate tax rates decide to increase tariffs on UK goods and services to entice investment away. Do we then lower our rates even further to remain competitive? There will be no winners in this.
In the event of a hard Brexit the WTO would set the tariffs.
All this debate is frivilous though, the manifesto, to me, is clearly designed to retain control of the Labour party and not to win this election.
What would an election-winning manifesto look like to you?
One that had policies that were realistic in the face of Brexit. Brexit being an unprecedented economic upheaval which makes Corbyn's proposed levels of public spending seem fantastical.
One that doesn't look like it is trying to tickle the balls of every liberal pressure group and demographic in the UK.
Nuclear bomb R&D as a Saudi client. After all the odds of them using it are minuscule, so no one gets hurt, Britain will get lots of money, and diplomatic ties with a valuable ally will be strengthened. Use that to pay for a corp tax reduction.
Come on, we have @Dobba for sarcastic comments.
Do you think Corbyn's economic plan will make the UK attractive to investors after Brexit, if yes then why?
This is a crucial issue for the UK.
Besides, he forgot biannual poops being mailed to council homes.
You'd expect May to be better informed wouldn't you?
The people of Yemen wouldn't be blown up by British munitions, it's good enough for me.
If the Saudis didn't have any weapons with which to surpress their people they may treat them better. We Brits should set the example to follow
Surely in the face of a massive Brexit induced downturn a public spending splurge will be required?
IFS being quite stark about it (via Guardian)
I can understand the arguments surrounding rail and energy but renationalising Royal mail seems like a pointless exercise.
How did you get hold of the Tory manifesto?
This is the best Labour manifesto in absolute yonks, it's driving these feckers mad.
Increased public spending would be required along with making Britain an attractive place for investors. Balls to the wall public spending and an unattractive marketplace as per the Labour manifesto threatens to create a new mountain of debt and longer term and very significant economic problems.